On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 11:29:08AM -0500, D. Hageman wrote: > 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.
I'm not taking it personally, I like fixes and enhancements but not the way you try to promote them. Post your patches and discuss it with John, who already agreed to review them. After a decision has been made and the bit included or not, then you can think of distributing it to the masses. You already did publish a package changing syntax changes that you later decided to withdraw. And you still miss to mention what was wrong with the old driver sources (and the rpm for that matter). Where did the official driver fail? > >> 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. It already built w/o the patch. And did you check whether the modified driver still builds on all platforms the official one does (X11R6, xorg and XFree alike)? > 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. This list is known to be inhabited by more than 1.500 *users*, not developers. And packages are for *users* not developers ... -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgpFuyyC4ABvI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ivtv-devel mailing list [email protected] http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-devel
