On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 12:22:52AM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On Saturday 25 March 2006 00:14, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 12:08:00AM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > On Saturday 25 March 2006 00:03, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 11:17:07PM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > > > On Thursday 23 March 2006 03:39, Stephen C. North wrote: > > > > > > ivtv-0.4.3 is called the most recent stable release but it > > > > > > does not compile against 2.6.15 (some I2C defines missing). > > > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]@ I'm gonna kill the fedora guys! The kernel reports > > > > > itself as a 2.6.15, but it really is a 2.6.16-rc6. Which > > > > > braindead person made that idiotic decision? > > > > > > > > It's hard to tell, as the current versioning scheme was decided > > > > some ages ago (at least before 2002). The question is why doesn't > > > > modern Fedora Core fix this. I brought this up, but there will be > > > > no change of versioning policy. > > > > > > I wouldn't have minded so much if only the label was 2.6.15, but > > > the internal version number is also 2.6.15, even though this kernel > > > has loads of i2c core changes that are 2.6.16 specific. > > > > > > Anyway, I'm going to make a workaround for this, otherwise I'll be > > > answering these questions for the next few months :-( > > > > I wouldn't bother, because there is only this one kernel rpm with > > this mismatch, this kernel is flawed in several ways like not being > > able to load nvidia, ati, madwifi, ndiswrapper and the like, and a > > replacement kernel (true 2.6.16, rpm also called that way) is already > > in updates-testing. > > Yes, but it is in the initial FC5 iso download, so unless that's > replaced many people will just pick that and install ivtv over it. And > I get the complaints...
I hope most FC5 users will continue to use packages, so they won't step into this pitfall. > Not only compile problems, it also introduces a bug in ivtv-osd.c > (also checks against the kernel version and picks the wrong path). You mean at run-time? That requires a bit more hacking around to fix. In that case a special handling workaround in the sources would be better. > It's not much work, the advantage is that this 0.6 release is for the > 2.6.16 kernel only, so I can just remove some tests. Wouldn't 0.6.x build on a previous kernel if it had the latest video4linux bits externally added? E.g. maybe it's better to keep some tests for such cases. What I'd like to see long term is video4linux support for 2.6.9 kernels (I'm bugging Mauro on this) and of course having the latest ivtv built on this, too. That way people can create mythtv boxes on RHEL4 and derivatives/clones which will give them a longer lifespan than with Fedora Core. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgpwUOAeRyEMH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ivtv-devel mailing list [email protected] http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-devel
