On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Axel Thimm wrote: > 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.
Okay, your opinion has been noted. It is okay to let it go now. We are all working for the same goal here. ;-) Personally, it doesn't matter to me if my RPMs are accepted are not. They were posted here if someone wanted to use them. I have plenty of other things on my plate that can keep me occupied other then this. :-) > 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? I think you keep reading over the complaints about the "official" driver. Look back at the old e-mails for stuff regarding naming, consistency and macros. Something not noted in those e-mail, but would probably be helpful to add stuff like atrpms to the BuildRequires line. If you are going to make changes to the source, you should probably do it in a patch and not some perl/sed mojo. > 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)? Again, I am not looking to "replace" the "official" rpm, "official" rpm repository or the "official" rpm maker. BTW - the only reason why it builds without the patch is because the "official" rpm puts the patch in the spec file as well as distribute files outside any ivtv source tree! >> 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 ... *sigh* Again, It is submitted for people here to review. If they want to take the changes - great! If not - no worries! I think people realize that if you are on a devel list ... that it just might not be of ... How should I word this - "official" release quality? If you suggest I take this off list and communicate via private channels - I just don't feel like that is very in sync with the open source philosophy. -- //========================================================\\ || D. Hageman <[email protected]> || \\========================================================// _______________________________________________ ivtv-devel mailing list [email protected] http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-devel
