On 4/5/06, D. Hageman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Jeff Simpson wrote: > > >> > >> Ah! Looks very good. Very similar to the patch included in my SRPM. > > > > Not really that similar, unless I am reading this comparison from > > Axel's email wrong (or if the comparison is misleading): > > > > Don't look to Axel's e-mail. Look at the latest version of the RPM. I > have changed it quite a bit since I talked to you and agreed with the > points that you made.
Ah, ok, disregard what I said then. I haven't personally looked at the RPM or anything, I was just going on what was said. Does anyone have an idea of what should be done with the normal XDriver sources? It seems that most if not all recent distributions will need patches to make them compile with new kernels / xorg versions / etc. Maybe it should be branched off. If the current source file compiles fine with kernel 2.4 and xorg 6.8 and the changes we made work for kernel 2.6 and xorg 6.9 but don't work with 2.4 and 6.8, maybe it makes sense to keep them separate. Or maybe it would be better to write in a couple #ifdef statements to identify kernel and xorg versions (to identify when the include file definitions changed) so that the same file could be used for either without patching (the autoconf stuff would still be needed for the new x.org, but at least the core .C and .h files would remain the same). Thoughts? _______________________________________________ ivtv-devel mailing list [email protected] http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-devel
