> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axel Thimm > Sent: 04 April 2006 21:57 > To: D. Hageman; Discussion list for development of the IVTV driver > Subject: [ivtv-devel] forking ivtv xdriver (was: > xorg-x11-drv-ivtv-0.10.6) > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 11:36:44PM -0600, D. Hageman wrote: > > > > I have put together an ivtv X driver RPM for Fedora Core 5. I > > will/can make it available if anyone is interested in it. > > > > I did make changes to the filenames and some of the code to make it > > more "inline" with the naming scheme of the rest of the > drivers in the > > xorg tree (call it ivtv_drv instead of ivtvdev). > > Quite some change, the tarball is now 16 times as big due to > autotool bloat and there isn't any sane way to perform a code > review against the current and *official* driver. > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18696 Aug 31 2005 > ivtv_xdriver_src_0.10.6.tgz > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 309815 Mar 31 04:42 > xf86-video-ivtv-0.10.6.tar.gz > > Imakefile | 55 ---- > Makefile | 6 > Makefile.am | 37 ++ > Makefile.in | 489 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > TODO | 11 > ivtv.h | 437 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ivtv_drv.c | 605 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ivtv_drv.h | 17 + > ivtv_hw.c | 819 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ivtv_hw.h | 86 ++++++ > ivtv_xv.c | 14 - > ivtvdev.c | 605 -------------------------------------------- > ivtvdev.h | 17 - > ivtvhw.c | 819 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ivtvhw.h | 86 ------ > > I think this is something you first have to discuss with > upstream and get their go before publishing such modified > code and even packaging it for broader consuming. I'm sure > John, who's the maintainer of the xdriver will listen to any > suggestions you have. > > I'm not saying that the changes are bad. It is just not the > way oss works, unless you want to fork the project. If you > really want to fork then please use another versioning, the > current state will only confuse users. Otherwise please feed > this list with little patches that can be reviewed. Thanks. > -- > Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net >
Whilst I don't disagree that some of these name changes might make it more consistent with other drivers it also makes it different from what is there and that starts to cause confusion. Just little changes can cause an enormous amount of confusion to people who don't understand what has changed. So I will take a look at the changes and we can discuss them but we should be careful about making them too public. It will probably be next week though before I get to look at it. John _______________________________________________ ivtv-devel mailing list [email protected] http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-devel
