On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 06:10:02PM -0500, Donald A. Pellegrino Jr. wrote: > Thanks for the link. I would prefer the atrpms.net package over a > manual install as the RPMs do manage dependencies quite well. If you > have been able to use the firmware from the link without a warning > from the kernel module, then it seems the best thing to do would be > to update the content of the RPM. Should I file a bug report with > atrpms.net to get the process started or does someone on this list > maintain this RPM?
The firmware in the rpm has been known to work well since 1 1/2 years now, and has been downloaded several thousand times by then. It does seem like this firmware version being a very stable one. The reason the driver recommends other firmwares is that these are the firmwares the developers were developing against at that time, and can therefore guarantee the driver working. Up to date there wasn't an issue, which was resolved by not using the firmware in the rpms, but another one, so I hesitate to upgrade the firmwares. > Since I have been too lazy to install the firmware from the link > manually, I am also asking, can you, or someone using the current > firmware, confirm it works without warning and that the RPM needs to > be updated? > > From: "Ben Holt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "User discussion about IVTV" <[email protected]> > Sent: 2/21/06 8:52 PM > Subject: Re: [ivtv-users] Encoder Firmware Version Warning > > I can't comment on why atrpms might be distributing a different > firmware version than what is recommended, but you'll find what you > need here: > > http://ivtvdriver.org/index.php/Firmware -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgpGQa0CeU608.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ivtv-users mailing list [email protected] http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-users
