On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Axel Thimm wrote:
>>
>> This should make it easy to continue to develop and distribute the ivtv X
>> driver like it is now, but still package RPMs that can be used on
>> RedHat/Fedora-type systems.
>>
>> Again, I have no desire to fork anything. I just found the current state
>> of ivtv rpms didn't meet my needs
>
> Like what? At the beginning of the thread you didn't even know there
> were other rpms ...
>
What you claim is true, but not knowing is still a state. I did
investigate the RPMS after finding out about them and still found them to
not meet my needs. Please don't take this personally. I sense that you
might be a touch up in arms over this.
>> and felt that I could help other people who felt the same way.
>
> So, you don't mind the fact that there are now different sets of rpms
> that conflict with each-other. Who's going to cater for the issue
> reports that will follow? How do we know whether someting works in
> your 0.10.6 version vs the official one?
I guess I could be more accommodating and put in a Conflicts line in the
RPM to denote issues with the ivtv x driver from your repository. I don't
want to cause any issues here. I am just letting other people take
advantage of some of the work I have done.
> If you want to change something do it the proper way, at the source
> level first. And make suggestions that the maintainer (John) can
> review and ask for corrections etc. The way you're doing it now *is* a
> fork. At the very least add a suffix to the version like 0.10.6hageman.
I really am not making any source level changes that modify the
fundamental behavior of the driver with this latest rpm. All my patch
does is make it build and be consistent with the latest stuff from Fedora
Core 5. I am also not actively advertising my work beyond this list.
This list is for development work ... so in a sense I am submitting it for
review and not forking anything.
In a related vein, I made a tar.bz2 file that is compatible with all the autotools junk and installs with gentoo (with a separate ebuild file). I'm sure my package is also quite a bit larger than the original (223k vs 18k), but there is very little change to the source .c and .h files - all the changes are made in the additional autoconf files. Also, the directory structure changed significantly (no more nested-9-directories-deep)
I posted links to the .ebuild and .tar.bz2 files on ivtvdriver.org and mythtv.org wikis
http://www.ivtvdriver.org/index.php/Howto:Gentoo
http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/index.php/XV_on_PVR-350
- Jeff
Here is a diff of the /src directory of both packages:
42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] xf86-video-ivtvdev-0.10.6]> diff orig/ src/
Only in src/: configure.ac
Only in orig/: Imakefile
diff orig/ivtvdev.c src/ivtvdev.c
7a8
> #include "config.h"
diff orig/ivtvhw.c src/ivtvhw.c
2a3,5
> #include "config.h"
> #include <asm/page.h> /* #define for PAGE_* */
>
16c19
< #include "fbpriv.h"
---
> #include <linux/fb.h>
18d20
< #include "asm/page.h" /* #define for PAGE_* */
21c23
< #include "extensions/dpms.h"
---
> #include <X11/extensions/dpms.h>
diff orig/ivtvhw.h src/ivtvhw.h
17c17
< #include "fbpriv.h"
---
> #include <linux/fb.h>
diff orig/ivtv_xv.c src/ivtv_xv.c
43a44
> #include "config.h"
49c50
< #include "Xv.h"
---
> #include <X11/extensions/Xv.h>
Only in orig/: Makefile
Only in src/: Makefile.am
Only in src/: Makefile.in
_______________________________________________ ivtv-devel mailing list [email protected] http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-devel
