Re: [vdr] vdr with control plugin and osd
Hello Sebastian and all readers, on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 9:34:51 AM means Sebastian Dellit: on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 2:09:30 PM means Tobi: Sebastian Dellit wrote: The options for the control plugin are correct but the Are you sure? The control plug-in must be configured to use the same tty as VDR. See the KEYB_TTY setting in /etc/default/vdr and the -t option in /etc/vdr/plugins/plugin.control.conf. Thanks for this hint. I add the line KEYB_TTY=/dev/tty1 after the line OPTIONS=-w 60 I also add a line -t /dev/tty1 in the plugin config file. When I start the vdr I geht the following error in the syslog: Jan 27 14:18:12 media vdr: [4068] max. latency time 1 seconds Jan 27 14:18:12 media vdr: [4082] clearing device because of consecutive poll timeouts Jan 27 14:18:13 media vdr: [4083] buffer usage: 70% (tid=4082) Jan 27 14:18:13 media vdr: [4083] buffer usage: 80% (tid=4082) [...] I also test the vdrdevel with the same results: Feb 3 09:31:48 media vdrdevel: [13188] [control] gateway thread started (pid=13164) Feb 3 09:31:48 media vdrdevel: [13175] clearing device because of consecutive poll timeouts Feb 3 09:31:50 media vdrdevel: [13189] KBD remote control thread started (pid=13164, tid=13189) Feb 3 09:31:50 media vdrdevel: [13176] buffer usage: 70% (tid=13175) Feb 3 09:31:51 media vdrdevel: [13176] buffer usage: 80% (tid=13175) Feb 3 09:31:51 media vdrdevel: [13176] buffer usage: 90% (tid=13175) Feb 3 09:31:52 media vdrdevel: [13176] buffer usage: 100% (tid=13175) Feb 3 09:31:52 media vdrdevel: [13176] ERROR: 1 ring buffer overflow (177 bytes dropped) Feb 3 09:31:55 media vdrdevel: [13164] switching to channel 2 Feb 3 09:31:58 media vdrdevel: [13164] ERROR: transfer thread 13175 won't end ( waited 3 seconds) - canceling it... Feb 3 09:32:30 media vdrdevel: [13164] caught signal 15 Feb 3 09:32:54 media vdrdevel: [13164] PANIC: watchdog timer expired - exiting! Feb 3 09:32:55 media vdrdevel: [13173] KBD remote control thread ended (pid=131 64, tid=13173) Feb 3 09:32:55 media vdrdevel: [13189] KBD remote control thread ended (pid=131 64, tid=13189) What can I do? thanks and -- Best regards Sebastian ICQ: 264706583 | MSM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Skype: sebo_de | Yahoo: de_sebo E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Web: www.blindzeln.de ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
[vdr] [Announce] xxv-1.1 - Feature release (1.2 rc)
Hello, The xxv project team announce this feature release of xxv-1.1. xxv-1.1 is a release candidate of our next major release for XXV the Xtreme eXtension for VDR,its containing a large number of bug fixes and enhancements and more. Major changes are : -- Database: Change method of version control AUTOTIMER: Add start/stop date to limit date range MOVETIMER: New modul: This module move timers between channels. Like DVB-S to DVB-T if timer collision detected. RECORDS: - Use Linux::Inotify2, to detect new recordings without polling - Add command to recover deleted recordings STREAM: - Add HTTPD Streaming for recording, with start time - Add embed player of playback (selectable widget) Read the full announcement : http://xxv.berlios.de/content/view/39/1/ Please note : -- Maybe your must check your installed perl modules, because some new external perl modules are needed. After the installation of an update, you should call first always the script contrib/update-xxv. See also our section with installation hints and tips : http://xxv.berlios.de/content/blogcategory/17/33/ Enjoy, Andreas ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Transfer-Mode without remux
Hi Klaus, sending TS payload data directly to the device shouldn`t become a generally method. Please be aware that there are other output devices which can`t handle TS data. For example, the decoder of the PVR350 needs a multiplexed Audio/Video PES. Greets, Martin ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Transfer-Mode without remux
On 02/03/08 10:56, Martin Dauskardt wrote: Hi Klaus, sending TS payload data directly to the device shouldn`t become a generally method. Please be aware that there are other output devices which can`t handle TS data. For example, the decoder of the PVR350 needs a multiplexed Audio/Video PES. The cDevice::PlayTS() function I have introduced does unpack the TS stream and sends the PES that is contained in the TS to the device (otherwise the full featured DVB cards couldn't replay it, either). The benefits of this method would be that it saves two extra ring buffers, one extra thread, and quite a bit of data processing. Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
[vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the multiproto driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM). In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would make sense to revoke the switch to the multiproto driver and go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch now. If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then. I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR for HDTV before looking into these patches. So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Hi Klaus, my opinion: the next stable version should contain DVB-S2/H.264 (HDTV) support. So there is no use for a stable version based on 1.5.14. Kind regards Martin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Klaus Schmidinger Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:17 AM To: vdr@linuxtv.org Subject: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now? There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the multiproto driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM). In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would make sense to revoke the switch to the multiproto driver and go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch now. If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then. I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR for HDTV before looking into these patches. So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Martin Binder (AON) wrote: Hi Klaus, my opinion: the next stable version should contain DVB-S2/H.264 (HDTV) support. So there is no use for a stable version based on 1.5.14. Kind regards Martin Basically, I agree. But since there are no DVB-S2 drivers in the official kernel I think Klaus is right in making a 1.6 now before jumping on the multiproto bandwagon. DVB-S2 and h.264 will be quite experimental for a while so why not leave that for 1.7. In short, I vote yes. And I'm really glad you have committed to implementing DVB-S2/h.264 in VDR! /Magnus H ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? No. The current features in 1.5.14 are still missing some essential key features that should be included in the next stable version: DVB subtitling (still missing component type support for the hard of hearing), EBU subtitling, native channels.conf support for pseudo DVB devices (pvrinput, iptv, analogtv), and multiple channel lists. BR, -- rofa ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Sunday 03 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? I have no use for HDTV support (the only HDTV available in the UK at present is on the closed $KY system), so freezing the current development version into a stable release sounds a good idea. The distributions which include vdr would probably appreciate a release which worked with their existing kernels. Maybe we'll all meet again at version 2.0... Yes or No? Yes. -- Dave ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 02/03/08 11:43, Rolf Ahrenberg wrote: On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? No. The current features in 1.5.14 are still missing some essential key features that should be included in the next stable version: DVB subtitling (still missing component type support for the hard of hearing), EBU subtitling, native channels.conf support for pseudo DVB devices (pvrinput, iptv, analogtv), and multiple channel lists. I am not going to deal with these things before DVB-S2/H.264, anyway. Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 03.02.2008 11:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Is the CAM Handling regarding multiple parallel recodings (on the same channel) fixed? I had to revert to 1.2 after the 1.4 was such a disaster in that regard. If yes then: yes. If no then: I don't care. Can't use it anyway. Bis denn -- Real Programmers consider what you see is what you get to be just as bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer wants a you asked for it, you got it text editor -- complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? 1.5 already introduced many new features as freetype, the new i18n, subtitles, ... just to name some. h264 has not seen that broad of an adoption to be a must have for the next stable release either. and the switch to the new kernel API will make things even more troublesome for packagers who want to ship the latest stable vdr release. IMHO Yes or No? yes. c.k. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 02/03/08 12:11, Richard F wrote: Klaus, For those of us not 100% up to date with the code, could you list for us the main changes we are voting for here? Also, some indication of any known compatibility issues that might arise (e.g. with Vdradmin, Vomp, Epgsearch... Please take a look at the HISTORY file that comes with VDR. Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 02/03/08 12:06, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: On 03.02.2008 11:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Is the CAM Handling regarding multiple parallel recodings (on the same channel) fixed? Have you tried version 1.5 yet? It can do multiple parallel recordings with the same CAM (if the CAM supports this). Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: On 02/03/08 11:43, Rolf Ahrenberg wrote: No. The current features in 1.5.14 are still missing some essential key features that should be included in the next stable version: DVB subtitling (still missing component type support for the hard of hearing), EBU subtitling, native channels.conf support for pseudo DVB devices (pvrinput, iptv, analogtv), and multiple channel lists. I am not going to deal with these things before DVB-S2/H.264, anyway. The compile time selection between multiproto and normal drivers (as done in Udo's dvb-api-emulate patch) could be used from now on. I don't see any reason to freeze the development at this phase. The completition of H.264 support would be nice to have in next stable version. The H.264 support isn't related only to DVB-S2 as it's used already in many DVB-C and DVB-T networks nowadays. Also, I'd vote for making the recording format selectable, PES or TS, as it would make the postprocessing of VDR files with existing Windows/Linux tools a lot easier. -- rofa ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 02/03/08 12:17, Rolf Ahrenberg wrote: On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: On 02/03/08 11:43, Rolf Ahrenberg wrote: No. The current features in 1.5.14 are still missing some essential key features that should be included in the next stable version: DVB subtitling (still missing component type support for the hard of hearing), EBU subtitling, native channels.conf support for pseudo DVB devices (pvrinput, iptv, analogtv), and multiple channel lists. I am not going to deal with these things before DVB-S2/H.264, anyway. The compile time selection between multiproto and normal drivers (as done in Udo's dvb-api-emulate patch) could be used from now on. I don't see any reason to freeze the development at this phase. The completition of H.264 support would be nice to have in next stable version. The H.264 support isn't related only to DVB-S2 as it's used already in many DVB-C and DVB-T networks nowadays. Just for the record: this would most likely pospone the next stable version for quite a while. Also, I'd vote for making the recording format selectable, PES or TS, as it would make the postprocessing of VDR files with existing Windows/Linux tools a lot easier. It is either going to remain PES, or switch entirely to TS. Supporting both formats for recording is not what I intend to do. Of course, replaying PES recordings will still be possible. Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: On 02/03/08 11:43, Rolf Ahrenberg wrote: No. The current features in 1.5.14 are still missing some essential key features that should be included in the next stable version: DVB subtitling (still missing component type support for the hard of hearing), EBU subtitling, native channels.conf support for pseudo DVB devices (pvrinput, iptv, analogtv), and multiple channel lists. I am not going to deal with these things before DVB-S2/H.264, anyway. Klaus I've been using VDR for about a year and a half now and it's great. But with all due respect, I think you're doing this the wrong way around. At least here in Finland, decent DVB subtitles support is pretty much the only thing VDR needs to be usable out-of-the-box with the free channels we have. In my opinion DVB-S2/H.264 are nice to have extra features, but working DVB subtitling support is a must have feature for PVR software like VDR, because almost everyone needs DVB subtitles around here, but not that many watch HDTV channels yet. -- Ville-Pekka Vainio ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus, For those of us not 100% up to date with the code, could you list for us the main changes we are voting for here? Also, some indication of any known compatibility issues that might arise (e.g. with Vdradmin, Vomp, Epgsearch... Thanks ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 02/03/08 12:27, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote: Klaus Schmidinger wrote: On 02/03/08 11:43, Rolf Ahrenberg wrote: No. The current features in 1.5.14 are still missing some essential key features that should be included in the next stable version: DVB subtitling (still missing component type support for the hard of hearing), EBU subtitling, native channels.conf support for pseudo DVB devices (pvrinput, iptv, analogtv), and multiple channel lists. I am not going to deal with these things before DVB-S2/H.264, anyway. Klaus I've been using VDR for about a year and a half now and it's great. But with all due respect, I think you're doing this the wrong way around. At least here in Finland, decent DVB subtitles support is pretty much the only thing VDR needs to be usable out-of-the-box with the free channels we have. In my opinion DVB-S2/H.264 are nice to have extra features, but working DVB subtitling support is a must have feature for PVR software like VDR, because almost everyone needs DVB subtitles around here, but not that many watch HDTV channels yet. Which version of VDR are you using? The current developer version does have DVB subtitling support. Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Sunday 03 February 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? +1 ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: On 02/03/08 12:27, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote: Klaus Schmidinger wrote: On 02/03/08 11:43, Rolf Ahrenberg wrote: No. The current features in 1.5.14 are still missing some essential key features that should be included in the next stable version: DVB subtitling (still missing component type support for the hard of hearing), EBU subtitling, native channels.conf support for pseudo DVB devices (pvrinput, iptv, analogtv), and multiple channel lists. I am not going to deal with these things before DVB-S2/H.264, anyway. Klaus I've been using VDR for about a year and a half now and it's great. But with all due respect, I think you're doing this the wrong way around. At least here in Finland, decent DVB subtitles support is pretty much the only thing VDR needs to be usable out-of-the-box with the free channels we have. In my opinion DVB-S2/H.264 are nice to have extra features, but working DVB subtitling support is a must have feature for PVR software like VDR, because almost everyone needs DVB subtitles around here, but not that many watch HDTV channels yet. Which version of VDR are you using? The current developer version does have DVB subtitling support. Klaus I have to admit I'm still using 1.4.7 with the subtitles plugin. But I was referring to the issues with DVB and EBU subtitling that Rolf pointed out in his mail. If there are problems and/or missing features, I wish those could be fixed before doing a stable release. I'll test 1.5 soon myself, so I'll see what the situation actually is. -- Ville-Pekka Vainio ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote: In my opinion DVB-S2/H.264 are nice to have extra features, but working DVB subtitling support is a must have feature for PVR software like VDR, because almost everyone needs DVB subtitles around here, but not that many watch HDTV channels yet. But the DVB subtitling is working, isn't it? At least i have not had any problems with the incorporated solution for a long time. But I still feel that the subtitling as such is not ready, because the functionality of ttxtsubs plugin is not yet in the core. Most of the subscription channels that I have/have had use only ttxtsubs (e.g. Canal+) and therefore I am forced to still patch the core VDR to get ttxtsubs working. In an ideal state no patches would be required :) On the other hand.. h.264 is AFAIK coming popular with SDTV in DVB-T also (Estonia, Norway, Slovenia) and therefore I feel that it should be prioritized over any new subtitling solutions and once there is support for h.264, a new stable release should be made. -Petri ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 03.02.2008 12:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: On 02/03/08 12:06, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: On 03.02.2008 11:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Is the CAM Handling regarding multiple parallel recodings (on the same channel) fixed? Have you tried version 1.5 yet? No And as the 1.2-version works great i have no real pressure for anything newer. (*) The only exception is channel-scanning, but for that i have a 1.4-version in a parallel-setup, that i can run for a bit of time when there are no recordings pending. I will try a 1.6-version after a little time has passed, but it heavily depends on me having to update the Linux-install to a recent state or not. It can do multiple parallel recordings with the same CAM (if the CAM supports this). That's not a case i'm very much interested in, at least as long as i don't know it is actually usable in my case. But even then, Murphy will prevent it from being useful 90% of the time it could have been useful. So it's still nothing i would count on. *: Taking aside that i can't update my DVB-computers linux-installation to anything recent as the 1.2-version of VDR can't cope with a recent glibc (threading). But that's not a real problem as i don't use my DVB-computers for anything else. :-) Bis denn -- Real Programmers consider what you see is what you get to be just as bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer wants a you asked for it, you got it text editor -- complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 02/03/08 12:48, Petri Helin wrote: Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote: In my opinion DVB-S2/H.264 are nice to have extra features, but working DVB subtitling support is a must have feature for PVR software like VDR, because almost everyone needs DVB subtitles around here, but not that many watch HDTV channels yet. But the DVB subtitling is working, isn't it? At least i have not had any problems with the incorporated solution for a long time. But I still feel that the subtitling as such is not ready, because the functionality of ttxtsubs plugin is not yet in the core. Most of the subscription channels that I have/have had use only ttxtsubs (e.g. Canal+) and therefore I am forced to still patch the core VDR to get ttxtsubs working. In an ideal state no patches would be required :) On the other hand.. h.264 is AFAIK coming popular with SDTV in DVB-T also (Estonia, Norway, Slovenia) and therefore I feel that it should be prioritized over any new subtitling solutions and once there is support for h.264, a new stable release should be made. Is this a Yes or No vote? Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: On 02/03/08 12:48, Petri Helin wrote: once there is support for h.264, a new stable release should be made. Is this a Yes or No vote? Klaus Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? If the h.264 support is left out, it's a no. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes, I think it would be a good idea to have a stable and up-to-date VDR version in the main distros based on the kernel drivers. OT: Klaus, can you tell us anything about future H.264 support? DVB-S2 H.264 sounds HDTV, and this means that we'll have an X-based output instead of FF-card's TV out? Istvan -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 02/03/08 12:48, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: On 03.02.2008 12:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: On 02/03/08 12:06, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: On 03.02.2008 11:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Is the CAM Handling regarding multiple parallel recodings (on the same channel) fixed? Have you tried version 1.5 yet? No And as the 1.2-version works great i have no real pressure for anything newer. (*) The only exception is channel-scanning, but for that i have a 1.4-version in a parallel-setup, that i can run for a bit of time when there are no recordings pending. I will try a 1.6-version after a little time has passed, but it heavily depends on me having to update the Linux-install to a recent state or not. It can do multiple parallel recordings with the same CAM (if the CAM supports this). That's not a case i'm very much interested in, at least as long as i don't know it is actually usable in my case. But even then, Murphy will prevent it from being useful 90% of the time it could have been useful. So it's still nothing i would count on. Sorry, I must have read your text too fast. AFAICS doing several overlapping recordings on the same encrypted channel should work without problems. Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Petri Helin wrote: But the DVB subtitling is working, isn't it? At least i have not had any Only partially. The current implementation doesn't differentiate normal and hard of hearing stream components (Table 26 in ETSI EN 300 468). I was going to make a patch for this, but the ttxtsubs support would require modification to the same piece of code and Klaus propably want to design the solution by himself. working. In an ideal state no patches would be required :) I agree. No plugins should require any patches. BR, -- rofa ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? I would vote for a stable release now, cause some time has passed since the latest stable was released. Some ppl might get the impression that VDR is dead, cause they don't dare to use the dev-version. The latest stable (1.4.7) was released in may 2007.. I think that the current version could be good to freeze now, and then continue with new stuff. René -=-=- ... Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Hi Klaus, On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? With H264 support, because some DVB-T channels (at least here in France) are starting to carry H264-channels, afaiu unencrypted. With Multiproto support (DVB-S2), but only if VDR is able to switch to the current DVB-API provided by standard kernels at compile time. I guess Multiproto will not be there before 2.6.26 or even later. There is a bunch of drivers currently not working with Multiproto. Thanks, Patrick ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
[vdr] [PATCH] DVB API wrapper patch v0.2 for VDR-1.5.14
Hi list,
Based on the original DVB API patch of last week, I've done a cleaner
rewrite of the patch. This time, the changes to the VDR sources are
limited to a few #includes and replacements of ioctl calls by the new
DVBFE_ioctl wrapper call. All the magic goes into this API wrapper, that
translates multiproto calls into DVB 3.0 API calls.
There's also more control on the behavior. Adding DEFINES +=
-DDVB_MULTIPROTO_WRAPPER=1 to Make.config will enforce the API
translation even if the multiproto API is present, setting it =0 will
disable API translation, requiring the multiproto API to be present. By
default, the present API is automatically detected, and the wrapper is
enabled accordingly.
The patch currently doesn't translate the whole API, just the parts that
are used by VDR. But if required, the missing parts can surely be
integrated.
Cheers,
Udo
diff -Nu vdr-1.5.14/channels.c vdr-1.5.14-wrapper/channels.c
--- vdr-1.5.14/channels.c 2008-01-27 14:59:53.0 +0100
+++ vdr-1.5.14-wrapper/channels.c 2008-02-02 23:37:38.0 +0100
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
#include linux/dvb/frontend.h
#include ctype.h
#include device.h
+#include dvb_api_wrapper.h
#include epg.h
#include timers.h
diff -Nu vdr-1.5.14/dvb_api_wrapper.c vdr-1.5.14-wrapper/dvb_api_wrapper.c
--- vdr-1.5.14/dvb_api_wrapper.c1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ vdr-1.5.14-wrapper/dvb_api_wrapper.c2008-02-02 23:57:09.0
+0100
@@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
+/*
+ * dvb_api_wrapper.c:
+ * Wrapper to translate Multiproto DVB API to DVB 3.0 API calls
+ *
+ * See the main source file 'vdr.c' for copyright information and
+ * how to reach the author.
+ *
+ * $Id: $
+ */
+
+#include dvb_api_wrapper.h
+#include string.h
+#include errno.h
+#include sys/ioctl.h
+
+#ifdef DVB_MULTIPROTO_WRAPPER
+
+static bool TranslateCodeRate(fe_code_rate oldfec, dvbfe_fec fec) {
+ switch (fec) {
+case DVBFE_FEC_NONE: oldfec = FEC_NONE; return true;
+case DVBFE_FEC_1_2: oldfec = FEC_1_2; return true;
+case DVBFE_FEC_2_3: oldfec = FEC_2_3; return true;
+case DVBFE_FEC_3_4: oldfec = FEC_3_4; return true;
+case DVBFE_FEC_4_5: oldfec = FEC_4_5; return true;
+case DVBFE_FEC_5_6: oldfec = FEC_5_6; return true;
+case DVBFE_FEC_6_7: oldfec = FEC_6_7; return true;
+case DVBFE_FEC_7_8: oldfec = FEC_7_8; return true;
+case DVBFE_FEC_8_9: oldfec = FEC_8_9; return true;
+case DVBFE_FEC_AUTO: oldfec = FEC_AUTO; return true;
+default: return false;
+}
+}
+
+static bool TranslateModulation(fe_modulation oldmod, dvbfe_modulation mod) {
+ switch (mod) {
+case DVBFE_MOD_QPSK:oldmod = QPSK; return true;
+case DVBFE_MOD_QAM16: oldmod = QAM_16; return true;
+case DVBFE_MOD_QAM32: oldmod = QAM_32; return true;
+case DVBFE_MOD_QAM64: oldmod = QAM_64; return true;
+case DVBFE_MOD_QAM128: oldmod = QAM_128; return true;
+case DVBFE_MOD_QAM256: oldmod = QAM_256; return true;
+case DVBFE_MOD_QAMAUTO: oldmod = QAM_AUTO; return true;
+default: return false;
+ }
+}
+
+static bool TranslateBandwidth(fe_bandwidth_t oldbw, dvbfe_bandwidth
bandwidth) {
+ switch (bandwidth) {
+case DVBFE_BANDWIDTH_8_MHZ: oldbw = BANDWIDTH_8_MHZ; return true;
+case DVBFE_BANDWIDTH_7_MHZ: oldbw = BANDWIDTH_7_MHZ; return true;
+case DVBFE_BANDWIDTH_6_MHZ: oldbw = BANDWIDTH_6_MHZ; return true;
+case DVBFE_BANDWIDTH_AUTO: oldbw = BANDWIDTH_AUTO; return true;
+default: return false;
+ }
+}
+
+static bool TranslateTransmission(fe_transmit_mode_t oldtrans,
dvbfe_transmission_mode trans) {
+ switch (trans) {
+case DVBFE_TRANSMISSION_MODE_2K: oldtrans = TRANSMISSION_MODE_2K;
return true;
+case DVBFE_TRANSMISSION_MODE_8K: oldtrans = TRANSMISSION_MODE_8K;
return true;
+case DVBFE_TRANSMISSION_MODE_AUTO: oldtrans = TRANSMISSION_MODE_AUTO;
return true;
+default: return false;
+ }
+}
+
+static bool TranslateGuard(fe_guard_interval_t oldguard, dvbfe_guard_interval
guard) {
+ switch (guard) {
+case DVBFE_GUARD_INTERVAL_1_32: oldguard = GUARD_INTERVAL_1_32; return
true;
+case DVBFE_GUARD_INTERVAL_1_16: oldguard = GUARD_INTERVAL_1_16; return
true;
+case DVBFE_GUARD_INTERVAL_1_8: oldguard = GUARD_INTERVAL_1_8; return
true;
+case DVBFE_GUARD_INTERVAL_1_4: oldguard = GUARD_INTERVAL_1_4; return
true;
+case DVBFE_GUARD_INTERVAL_AUTO: oldguard = GUARD_INTERVAL_AUTO; return
true;
+default: return false;
+ }
+}
+
+static bool TranslateHierarchy(fe_hierarchy_t oldhier, dvbfe_hierarchy
hierarchy, dvbfe_alpha alpha) {
+ switch (hierarchy) {
+case DVBFE_HIERARCHY_OFF: oldhier = HIERARCHY_NONE; return true;
+case DVBFE_HIERARCHY_AUTO: oldhier = HIERARCHY_AUTO; return true;
+case DVBFE_HIERARCHY_ON:
+ switch (alpha) {
+ case DVBFE_ALPHA_1: oldhier = HIERARCHY_1; return true;
+ case DVBFE_ALPHA_2: oldhier = HIERARCHY_2; return true;
+ case
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Rolf Ahrenberg wrote: On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? No. The current features in 1.5.14 are still missing some essential key features that should be included in the next stable version: DVB subtitling (still missing component type support for the hard of hearing), EBU subtitling, native channels.conf support for pseudo DVB devices (pvrinput, iptv, analogtv), and multiple channel lists. For the same reasons, it's a No from me. If EBU subtitles are implemented in the vdr core without any need of plugins or patches, it's a Yes. -Mikko ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: On 02/03/08 13:26, Patrick Boettcher wrote: Hi Klaus, On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? With H264 support, because some DVB-T channels (at least here in France) are starting to carry H264-channels, afaiu unencrypted. With Multiproto support (DVB-S2), but only if VDR is able to switch to the current DVB-API provided by standard kernels at compile time. I guess Multiproto will not be there before 2.6.26 or even later. There is a bunch of drivers currently not working with Multiproto. There can only be Yes or No answers ;-) There can be only yes or no to a yes-or-no question. The latter criteria does not apply for yours. Maybe shorter: yes, without DVB-S2 support, with H264. Patrick. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the multiproto driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM). I favor TS due to the greater support by other applications. [...] So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? No, mostly due to the missing teletext subtitling support. -- Anssi Hannula ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 02/03/08 12:40, Füley István wrote: ... OT: Klaus, can you tell us anything about future H.264 support? DVB-S2 H.264 sounds HDTV, and this means that we'll have an X-based output instead of FF-card's TV out? VDR will use whatever output device it finds. For H.264 it will have to be one that can handle this format. Whether this is a hardware or software device is none of VDR's concern. The current FF-DVB cards can't handle H.264. Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
[vdr] VDR, Ubuntu upstart
Hi! I'm looking how to solve such issue: when I run runvdr script in terminal window of my Ubuntu 7.10 (with russian UTF8 locale), OSD shows correct russian EPG, channel lists, etc... But when I run vdr using upstart's script: exec /ego/vdr/_runvdr console output respawn the only language I could see is english, russian texts are replaced with ??? May be anyone could advice right direction to move? Thanks! ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Hello, in the Linux world, the first stable aren't necessary really stable, it just mean feature freeze. From my point of view, the inclusion of DVB-S2 and H.264 together with multiproto is a must have before a feature freeze. I feel we are really near of that point, I wish 1.6 could include those. Off course, only Klaus could tell how near we are... Maybe subtitles (as long as they could be disabled as I don't have to see them...) ? That way multiproto would come really quickly into the kernel and we'll have a DVB-S2/H.264's VDR really out of the box :-) -- Grégoire FAVRE http://gregoire.favre.googlepages.com http://www.gnupg.org http://picasaweb.google.com/Gregoire.Favre ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
At this point no, but yes when dvb-support is completed. -J- ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 02/03/08 13:26, Patrick Boettcher wrote: Hi Klaus, On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? With H264 support, because some DVB-T channels (at least here in France) are starting to carry H264-channels, afaiu unencrypted. With Multiproto support (DVB-S2), but only if VDR is able to switch to the current DVB-API provided by standard kernels at compile time. I guess Multiproto will not be there before 2.6.26 or even later. There is a bunch of drivers currently not working with Multiproto. There can only be Yes or No answers ;-) Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 02/03/08 13:39, Patrick Boettcher wrote: On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: On 02/03/08 13:26, Patrick Boettcher wrote: Hi Klaus, On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? With H264 support, because some DVB-T channels (at least here in France) are starting to carry H264-channels, afaiu unencrypted. With Multiproto support (DVB-S2), but only if VDR is able to switch to the current DVB-API provided by standard kernels at compile time. I guess Multiproto will not be there before 2.6.26 or even later. There is a bunch of drivers currently not working with Multiproto. There can only be Yes or No answers ;-) There can be only yes or no to a yes-or-no question. The latter criteria does not apply for yours. Maybe shorter: yes, without DVB-S2 support, with H264. Well, basically the question was Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2. Maybe I shouldn't have added the or even H.264 support part. That said, I count your vote as a No. Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 02/03/08 14:08, Udo Richter wrote: Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? My answer is a clear and determined 'Maybe'. ;) A new stable release would bring lots of useful features to the end user that is still sitting on 1.4.7, so this is surely worth a thought, maybe with a few smaller additions from the todo list. (Not that the 'developer' builds are anywhere near to being 'unstable'.) However, with some working fallback for multiproto compatibility, I don't see a reason why multiproto support should be dropped from a new stable release. Depending on how much needs to change for full h264 support, it might be better to spare that for the 1.7 cycle, but optional multiproto API support should be possible for an 1.6 stable. So my vote is: Yes, but based on the full 1.5.14 including multiproto and some fallback concept. So according to the original question your vote counts as No then. Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 02/03/08 13:36, Ales Jurik wrote: On Sunday 03 February 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? Klaus Hi Klaus, I vote for DVB-S2/H.264 (HDTV) support. But if it is a problem with some distros could it be there time-compile switch to choose which drivers to use? The developer version will only support one driver API officially, and that's the multiproto API. I thing it would be disadvantage to leave at whole such a well prepared part of vdr. It wouldn't be left out of the developer version (which would then be numbered 1.7.x). The question was whether there is enough demand for a stable version *now*, based on what is in version 1.5.14, but without the switch to DVB-S2 (and thus the multiproto driver). So far there have been 19 votes here on the list, 11 No and 8 Yes. I have asked the same question over on vdrportal.de, and there the situation looks a lot different: 90 votes, 70 Yes, 20 No. For the final result all votes given here on the ML and on vdrportal.de will be added up. Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 02/03/08 13:43, Gregoire Favre wrote: Hello, in the Linux world, the first stable aren't necessary really stable, it just mean feature freeze. From my point of view, the inclusion of DVB-S2 and H.264 together with multiproto is a must have before a feature freeze. I feel we are really near of that point, I wish 1.6 could include those. There is still a long way to go before H.264 support is in there. The question whether PES or TS will be the future recording format is still open. Off course, only Klaus could tell how near we are... Maybe subtitles (as long as they could be disabled as I don't have to see them...) ? That way multiproto would come really quickly into the kernel and we'll have a DVB-S2/H.264's VDR really out of the box :-) So I assume your vote is No. Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? My answer is a clear and determined 'Maybe'. ;) A new stable release would bring lots of useful features to the end user that is still sitting on 1.4.7, so this is surely worth a thought, maybe with a few smaller additions from the todo list. (Not that the 'developer' builds are anywhere near to being 'unstable'.) However, with some working fallback for multiproto compatibility, I don't see a reason why multiproto support should be dropped from a new stable release. Depending on how much needs to change for full h264 support, it might be better to spare that for the 1.7 cycle, but optional multiproto API support should be possible for an 1.6 stable. So my vote is: Yes, but based on the full 1.5.14 including multiproto and some fallback concept. Cheers, Udo ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Hi, I am against a stable version at this time. Those who wants to use latest vdr can use Udo's wrapper patch (Thanks for this)? The distributors can use this patch too so it is no need for a stable version at this time! Best regards, Halim -- Halim Sahin E-Mail: halim.sahin (at) t-online.de ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger schrieb: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? Yes, please best regards Alfred ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
No! Let's not lose momentum on VDR moving forward. I am intrigued as to whether this move towards TS will improve performance for my H264 channels. BTW, vompserver (CVS) / epgsearch etc all work with latest VDR and multiproto. I use it here. On Feb 3, 2008 1:25 PM, Klaus Schmidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 02/03/08 13:36, Ales Jurik wrote: On Sunday 03 February 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? Klaus Hi Klaus, I vote for DVB-S2/H.264 (HDTV) support. But if it is a problem with some distros could it be there time-compile switch to choose which drivers to use? The developer version will only support one driver API officially, and that's the multiproto API. I thing it would be disadvantage to leave at whole such a well prepared part of vdr. It wouldn't be left out of the developer version (which would then be numbered 1.7.x). The question was whether there is enough demand for a stable version *now*, based on what is in version 1.5.14, but without the switch to DVB-S2 (and thus the multiproto driver). So far there have been 19 votes here on the list, 11 No and 8 Yes. I have asked the same question over on vdrportal.de, and there the situation looks a lot different: 90 votes, 70 Yes, 20 No. For the final result all votes given here on the ML and on vdrportal.de will be added up. Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Yes On Feb 3, 2008 10:17 AM, Klaus Schmidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the multiproto driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM). In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would make sense to revoke the switch to the multiproto driver and go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch now. If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then. I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR for HDTV before looking into these patches. So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
For the final result all votes given here on the ML and on vdrportal.de will be added up. Klaus Shall it definitely be 1.6.0? Can't the 1.5.x improvements (subtitle support, utf, etc) be backported to 1.4 branch and call it 1.4.8? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 02/03/08 14:18, Füley István wrote: For the final result all votes given here on the ML and on vdrportal.de will be added up. Klaus Shall it definitely be 1.6.0? Can't the 1.5.x improvements (subtitle support, utf, etc) be backported to 1.4 branch and call it 1.4.8? Apart from a lot of work and a mere play with numbers, I don't see any advantage in that. 1.4 is *stable*, so there can't be any interface changes - which there are quite a few of in the 1.5.x line. Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:17:05AM +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? NO You would just shoot yourself in the leg ;O I'm sure, that there would be too much problems with the new features of the 1.5 branch and the mailing list would be full of guestions ;O That would perhaps have an influence of developing the H.264/HDTV brach. What I really would like to see is 1.5.x with built-in support for (in this order): H.264 ttxtsubs TS recording DVB-S2 Even though the new stable would be released, I would not change my main VDR for that. The 1.4.4 just works perfectly ;) main = for wife and kids ;) br ...hanu ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: ... Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? My (selfish) vote is No. I do like the fact that 1.5.14 raises some expectation of DVB-S2 support in the (official or distribution's) kernel. So, for me only a DVB-S2 capable VDR 1.6.0 makes any sense. Therefore, I vote NO to a 1.6.0 without DVB-S2. Carsten. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 11:17 +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? Yes. The linux kernel development has been through similar arguments about the merits of the 2.2/2.4/2.6 development models. I can not see any negatives in releasing a new stable version. Those that require DVB-S2/H.264 can carry on using the development tree. Those that want the other new features from 1.5 can use the new stable release without getting dragged into requiring a non-distro kernel and frequent updates. Jon ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? I would prefer some other features like ttxtsub before DVB-S2 and H.264 support but as this is not an option I vote for: Yes, now! The driver issue is a perfect situation to make a cut in version numbering and release a stable version. (And there will be enough questions about UTF-8 support/configuration problems. I do not want to imagine what will happen to the mailings list and vdr-portal if a version is released with so many things changed in one step like UTF-8, multiproto drivers and maybe other coming huge modifications. Let's take it step by step) Christoph ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Sonntag, 3. Februar 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? yes -- Wolfgang ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Sunday 03 February 2008 10:17:05 Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:17:05 +0100 Klaus Schmidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? Yes. The HDTV stuff and possibly a new recording format will be a huge change, I think freezing whatever improvements have gone into 1.5.x is a Good Thing. Yes, there will be some stuff missing but, like when we have to buy a new PC, in theory there's always something with a better price to performance ratio coming in a few months ... we just don;t care and buy whatever is better now, or keep waiting forever .. Mattia -- ---MR.- ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
What are chances that multiproto will be merged to kernel in the nearest time (1-2 months?) If chances are big, I don't think that it is a good time to lose valuable Klaus's time for releasing supporting new stable version that will freeze another stable 1.8 with multiproto support till 2009 :) So my vote is is NO in this case ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Am 03.02.2008 um 11:17 schrieb Klaus Schmidinger: So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? Klaus yes ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Feb 3, 2008 3:17 AM, Rolf Ahrenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The compile time selection between multiproto and normal drivers (as done in Udo's dvb-api-emulate patch) could be used from now on. I don't see any reason to freeze the development at this phase. The completition of H.264 support would be nice to have in next stable version. The H.264 support isn't related only to DVB-S2 as it's used already in many DVB-C and DVB-T networks nowadays. Also, I'd vote for making the recording format selectable, PES or TS, as it would make the postprocessing of VDR files with existing Windows/Linux tools a lot easier. I tend to agree with this. I don't think there should be any rush to release another stable version. I personally would love to see full DVB-S2 and H264 support in the next stable. The switch to multiproto makes sense as well since it should be adopted into the next kernel by the next release or two (leaving time to finish up VDR). Even the kernel maintainer wants multiproto in, and DVB-S2 users certainly do. I don't think theres any harm is having package maintainers wait a little longer. If people are dying that bad to use things like subtitles then there's nothing stopping them from using 1.5.14 for example. I am also in strong favor of using TS for the recording format as I've heard countless complaints by countless numbers of users who have trouble working with the current PES format. The ability to easily manipulate vdr recordings in other software has been a long-standing desire of many many people. Overall I'm not in favor of freezing the current development tree. There seems to be good momentum and no solid reasons to interrupt that. I don't think it's a horrible thing that package maintainers would have to wait a while longer, they've certainly waited longer in the past.. Especially if it means the next stable release has all kinds of new goodies wrapped inside! ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Andrey Kuzmin wrote: ... I don't think that it is a good time to lose valuable Klaus's time for releasing supporting new stable version Absolutely right! A 1.6.0 release now will only slow down progress. Carsten. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2008 11:17:05 schrieb Klaus Schmidinger: Yes or No? YES signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 02:24:03PM +, Jon Burgess wrote: The linux kernel development has been through similar arguments about the merits of the 2.2/2.4/2.6 development models. I can not see any negatives in releasing a new stable version. It's hard to compare VDR to kernels : VDR is maitained exclusively by Klaus, so If there is a stable release, he would have to spent lots of time in the stable branch before coming to the new devel branch again. If you look at the VDR code quality, and stability of the compiled code, I would say, we already have a stable branch in respect to usability :-) Those that require DVB-S2/H.264 can carry on using the development tree. Those that want the other new features from 1.5 can use the new stable release without getting dragged into requiring a non-distro kernel and frequent updates. No, I doubt there will be two branches at the same time... -- Grégoire FAVRE http://gregoire.favre.googlepages.com http://www.gnupg.org http://picasaweb.google.com/Gregoire.Favre ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 02/03/08 17:43, Gregoire Favre wrote: On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 02:24:03PM +, Jon Burgess wrote: The linux kernel development has been through similar arguments about the merits of the 2.2/2.4/2.6 development models. I can not see any negatives in releasing a new stable version. It's hard to compare VDR to kernels : VDR is maitained exclusively by Klaus, so If there is a stable release, he would have to spent lots of time in the stable branch before coming to the new devel branch again. If you look at the VDR code quality, and stability of the compiled code, I would say, we already have a stable branch in respect to usability :-) Well, then documenting that by calling it 1.6.0 now can't be that wrong ;-). Those that require DVB-S2/H.264 can carry on using the development tree. Those that want the other new features from 1.5 can use the new stable release without getting dragged into requiring a non-distro kernel and frequent updates. No, I doubt there will be two branches at the same time... Once a 1.6.0 is out, there will only be bugfixes in it. No more changes to interfaces, functionality etc. Development will immediately resume with version 1.7.0. And there doesn't necessarily need to be a stable 1.8.0 - the next stable that includes DVB-S2 and H.264 could get the magical version number 2.0.0 ;-). Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
My vote is No. Reason: teletext subtitles are missing and DVB-subtitles are not fully supported. Because of these VDR core needs to be patched therefore I consider it as incomplete regarding subtitling. If stable version is created now there is high risk that subtitling support will remain incomplete for a very long time. VDR without patches would be ideal and after those mentioned parts it's pretty close. Br, Pasi ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] VDR, Ubuntu upstart
Answering myself. I've changed script to: console output respawn script LANG=ru_RU.UTF-8 export LANG /ego/vdr/_runvdr end script and everyting works now Hi! I'm looking how to solve such issue: when I run runvdr script in terminal window of my Ubuntu 7.10 (with russian UTF8 locale), OSD shows correct russian EPG, channel lists, etc... But when I run vdr using upstart's script: exec /ego/vdr/_runvdr console output respawn the only language I could see is english, russian texts are replaced with ??? May be anyone could advice right direction to move? Thanks! ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2008 11:17:05 schrieb Klaus Schmidinger: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes. I am also keen on having HDTV support in VDR. But as things are now it will probably take some months to get everything done right. Better get the pressure from a new release by releasing now, and make HDTV right without pressure. Kind regards, Stefan ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 13:34 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: +1 Since I'm using Ville's Packages and he said yes, I also vote for yes. Tom ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 06:07:20PM +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Well, then documenting that by calling it 1.6.0 now can't be that wrong ;-). Yes, that's a good point :-) Once a 1.6.0 is out, there will only be bugfixes in it. No more changes to interfaces, functionality etc. Development will immediately resume with version 1.7.0. And there doesn't necessarily need to be a stable 1.8.0 - the next stable that includes DVB-S2 and H.264 could get the magical version number 2.0.0 ;-). From HISTORY : 2000-02-19: Version 0.01 2000-07-25: Version 0.6 2001-01-18: Version 0.70 2001-06-02: Version 0.80 2001-08-06: Version 0.90 2002-02-10: Version 0.99 2002-04-07: Version 1.0.0 one month later : 2002-05-09: Version 1.1.0 2003-06-01: Version 1.2.0 a little later : 2004-01-04: Version 1.3.0 2006-04-30: Version 1.4.0 a little later : 2007-01-07: Version 1.5.0 So from what we see, my impression was right, after a stable release it's a long time to start a new devel... Maybe the solution would be to give stable responsability to someone else like Linus do a solution ? Any solution that will be choosen will be fine for me :-) What I like with the idea of a 1.6 now is that it will help the inclusion of multiproto into the kernel, and what I dislike is that it will certainly slow down the H.264 integration... -- Grégoire FAVRE http://gregoire.favre.googlepages.com http://www.gnupg.org http://picasaweb.google.com/Gregoire.Favre ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: ... Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? I would vote for NO as the current status does not represent enough new functionality to justify a switch from 1.4.7 to the current version. TS recording format would be such a migration reason for me. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger schrieb: So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? Yes, I'ld prefer a stable 1.6.0 now or soon and DVB-S2 support in the upcoming 1.7.x. -- Und Tschüss. Stefan ### Kilroy was here ### 2.6.20.2 up 197 days ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] wrong time in tv program
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 16:32 +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: On 01/29/08 20:16, Martin SCHREIBER wrote: hello! the time in the vdr (right bottom) is displayed correctly but the time for the tv movies are displayed with a 7 hour displacement. e.g. the local time is 20:11 but the start time of the tv movie is displayed as 13:00. but the correct tv movie name is displayed. 'date' in the shell displays the correct time and also the correct timezone is set up in /etc/timezone as 'Europe/Berlin'. Is this happening only on a particular channel or on all channels? this happens on all channels Do you use the EPG data that comes from the broadcasters, or from some other source? as far as i know i just use the epg data from the broadcasters (dvb-s) i used the default settings on from the debian distribution. i also uploaded a screenshot: http://www.fs.tum.de/~schreibm/private/vdradmin.pl.jpeg another thing is that the correct program schedule is displayed for the first second and then it switches to the wrong one. but this only happens once for each tv station after a few minutes or hours. ciao, martin Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr -- Martin Schreiber http://www.martin-schreiber.net | Im Muehltal 48 | 91171 Greding | GERMANY ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? Klaus Yes ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? No ! I'm still using 1.4.7. It would have been a yes if : - i was using 1.5 already - new dev version 1.7 was about to be started at the same time and : * if development was about to change so that there will be a (distributed) version control system and more than 1 branch/commiter * if the todo list was known and open * if multiple frontends/display with independant osd+control was in the todo list * if the channel list was about to be revised so that it can handle every specific needs * if config files were about to be in XML ! (nah kidding) *g* NO I WON'T USE MYTHTV ! :-) Cheers -- ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Hi, fuuu vdr config files in xml Biiitte nicht. BR. Halim -- Halim Sahin E-Mail: halim.sahin (at) t-online.de ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Hello Klaus! No. As it has been pointed out generally speaking texting support is not complete and if new version is released now, it never will. The problem here is that functionality additions are not finished, only partially and adding new stuff is started simultaneously. Only reason for me to switch over from pathced 1.4 would be that VDR supports complete subtitles and teletext. When you set up a new stable version out what are you going to manifest there? Version 1.6.0: texting support yes / no? Partially yes / partially no? Take your poll... :) The work you do with VDR is absolutely great but need for closure like texting support has been there for years and VDR still is not going to support it properly not even 1.6.0 out of the box? Patch and patch again? I'm just wondering can't one major issue be properly finished before hopping to another big issue, HDTV support? It can wait like texting support has been waiting for years for closure. Then texting support would be done and then feel free to do what ever is needed to support demands from HDTV users what ever schedule you decide. :D Br, Markku ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
I demand that Rolf Ahrenberg may or may not have written... [snip] The completition of H.264 support would be nice to have in next stable version. The H.264 support isn't related only to DVB-S2 as it's used already in many DVB-C and DVB-T networks nowadays. Then there's DVB-T2, which we should have late next year; but I expect that that'll require multiproto support (and new cards!) anyway... -- | Darren Salt| linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon | RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army | + Buy local produce. Try to walk or cycle. TRANSPORT CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING. I'm making a home movie called The Thing That Grew in My Refrigerator. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
No On 03/02/2008, Klaus Schmidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the multiproto driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM). In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would make sense to revoke the switch to the multiproto driver and go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch now. If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then. I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR for HDTV before looking into these patches. So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr -- Style may not be the answer, but at least it's a workable alternative. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
[vdr] XXV UTF-8
Hi! I'm trying to setup XXV (latest SVN version). Everything seems to run OK, except I could not see russian EPG and channel list. Texts look like: tr tdTitle/td td#xd0;#x9b;#xd0;#xa3;#xd0;#xa7;#xd0;#xa8;#xd0;#x98;#xd0;#x95; #xd0;#x9a;#xd0;#x98;#xd0;#x9d;#xd0;#x9e;#xd0;#xa2;#xd0;#xa0;#xd0;#xae;#xd0;#x9a;#xd0;#x98;#x2d;2007/td /tr so they are HTML encoded. How to fix that? My system is Ubuntu 7.10 with russian locale, VDR 1.5.12 ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Hi Patrick, Patrick Boettcher wrote: Hi Klaus, On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? With H264 support, because some DVB-T channels (at least here in France) are starting to carry H264-channels, afaiu unencrypted. With Multiproto support (DVB-S2), but only if VDR is able to switch to the current DVB-API provided by standard kernels at compile time. I guess Multiproto will not be there before 2.6.26 or even later. There is a bunch of drivers currently not working with Multiproto. Something that was broken with my changes, or was it the merge ? Anything that you would like to point me to ? (ISP is still not back in shape, Internet access is currently in a pathetic state) Regards, Manu ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Yes for version 1.6.0 now :) --- Pizzak Administrator of vdr-italia wiki (http://vdr.spaghettilinux.org/) ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Hi So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? No, The reason is really easy to explain: I am happy with a stable 1.4.7 and I have no problem using a developer version, but if a new stable VDR version arrives, I will be forced to build an upgrade package for my Gen2VDR distri, which would cause some work Helmut ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Petri Helin wrote: If the h.264 support is left out, it's a no. Same here. AK ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 02/03/08 20:30, Markku Virtanen wrote: Hello Klaus! No. As it has been pointed out generally speaking texting support is not complete and if new version is released now, it never will. By texting support I assume you mean teletext subtitles. Well, they won't be implemented before DVB-S2/H.264 anyway. So it doesn't really make much difference whether there is a version 1.6.0 now ;-). The problem here is that functionality additions are not finished, only partially and adding new stuff is started simultaneously. Most of the time working on VDR is fun - as long as I can work in areas that I am interested in. As much as I try to attend to things others need (like subtitles in general, for instance - a thing I personally have absolutely no use for), there is this slight tendency to prefer working in areas that I find more fascinating at the time. Right now, after building a new VDR for DVB-S2 and putting one of these HDe cards into it, I'm quite eager to see what this HDTV everybody is hyping about is really like ;-) Only reason for me to switch over from pathced 1.4 would be that VDR supports complete subtitles and teletext. A stable version 1.6.0 would in no way force you to actually use it. Apparently you have a solution that currently works for you, so, by all means, keep on using it. When you set up a new stable version out what are you going to manifest there? Version 1.6.0: texting support yes / no? Partially yes / partially no? Take your poll... :) I guess it will say Support for DVB subtitles. The work you do with VDR is absolutely great but need for closure like texting support has been there for years and VDR still is not going to support it properly not even 1.6.0 out of the box? Patch and patch again? I wonder what comments I'd get if I said Hey, frack all that HDTV hype - what's really importand are teletext subtitles!. I guess it will never be possible to please everybody. I'm just wondering can't one major issue be properly finished before hopping to another big issue, HDTV support? It can wait like texting support has been waiting for years for closure. Then texting support would be done and then feel free to do what ever is needed to support demands from HDTV users what ever schedule you decide. :D There's an important message in what you wrote here: feel free! Yes, I want to feel free to spend my spare time doing things that primarily interest myself, and on a secondary level are useful for others. Call me selfish - but that's how it is. Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Yes or No? Yes. Although there have not been too many improvements, a lot of plugins had to be updated due to UTF-8 support etc. If you continue with huge things like H.264 and TS recording (yes, yes, yes :)), it might even take longer getting a new stable base for distributions etc. (although I am using 1.4.7 and still satisfied with it). I fear that waiting for multiproto to get into the kernel might become a neverendings story like the unbearable discussion before (including all those indignities) about future DVB driver development. Maybe we can start a bet when this finally going to happen... ;) Furthermore, I think, making it stable will just delay the H.264 development for several weeks (the last steps to the last stable releases might have taken a maximum of 6 weeks) while waiting for H.264 and TS recording will take a lot of months including waiting and evaluating supporting hardware (decoder cards, graphic card drivers) and software (xine/ffmpeg etc.). With kind regards Joerg ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: By texting support I assume you mean teletext subtitles. Well, they won't be implemented before DVB-S2/H.264 anyway. So it doesn't really make much difference whether there is a version 1.6.0 now ;-). Implementing also ttxtsubs would be an enormous pro for VDR in all the subtitling not dubbing world. That would make it possible for people to use binary versions form repositories of their favourite Linux distributions. I think it could bring a boost for VDR's user base (and I guess the same argument is valid for h.264 too). And for some reason distros seem to prefer versions labelled as stable over the ones with developer in the title... But since you have made up your mind and ttxtsubs will not be the next goal in any case, I think I must rethink the issue and say yes to your original question. It is a good time to make a stable release now, if you are taking on such a big task as being HDTV compliant :) Most of the time working on VDR is fun - as long as I can work in areas that I am interested in. As much as I try to attend to things others need (like subtitles in general, for instance - a thing I personally have absolutely no use for), there is this slight tendency to prefer working in areas that I find more fascinating at the time. Right now, after building a new VDR for DVB-S2 and putting one of these HDe cards into it, I'm quite eager to see what this HDTV everybody is hyping about is really like ;-) I see you are having fun for it feels like you have been quite productive lately :) Hopefully support for HDTV will bring along a restructured OSD too, made to look good with high resolution screens... -Petri PS. To put it short, I change my vote from no to YES. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? From my point of view as a Debian maintainer: YES Tobias ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On 3 Feb 2008, at 12:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? No. I think the next stable version should have complete subtitling support (both DVB and teletext subtitles). Also generic H.264 support would be nice (for the Xine plugin etc.). However, the next stable VDR should not require drivers that are not in vanilla 2.6.24 tree. -- Tuomas Jormola [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Feb 3, 2008 10:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * if config files were about to be in XML ! (nah kidding) *g* That's got to be one of the worst ideas I've heard! :\ ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
My vote is yes. Release early, Release Often. Perhaps teletext subtitling is missing, however it was missing from 1.4 and so why not release. (Is there a teletext patch for those users who must have this functionality?. Or even better, can a teletext plugin be written) Also, reading between the lines it would seem that you will release a new developer version straight away anyway. So what is there to loose? I don't think you (Klaus) are going to slow down development on developer versions any time soon. On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 11:17 +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the multiproto driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM). In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would make sense to revoke the switch to the multiproto driver and go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch now. If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then. I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR for HDTV before looking into these patches. So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
On Feb 3, 2008 12:17 PM, Klaus Schmidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? Klaus Yet another scandinavian opinion for ttxtsupport here but if you're already set your mind to prioritise H.264 over it my answer would be 'yes.' I (would imagine I'm not the only one) for sure will have to buy a totally new computer to handle H.264 and would like to freeze current one with stable vdr release assuming major flaws or security matters (not that there are any ;) will be patched to a certain stable release instead of 'previous beta -version (1.5.13 that is nowadays.) -- Jaakko Kemppainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] new drivers
Le samedi 02 février 2008 à 13:13 +0100, Hans Gustafsson a écrit : I got rid of the xine blue screen/hang by downgrading libX11 and libX11-devel to the ones from fedora 7 :) OK it works. It puts CPU usage up about 2-5%. I'll tell the openchrome and xine people. Cheers Tony -- ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
I usually lurk here so my vote represents the 'user' community more than the 'dev'.. Yes to stable 1.6.0 with current kernel-drivers - VDR needs new users that can get it running easily out of the box with a debian bare bones install. The people who want HDTV support are going to go with the dev-releases anyway. Yes to switching to TS recording, maybe review the metadata fileformats a bit and allow more extendability and plugin data store there (no XML pretty please!) Yes to ttextsubs too (oh sorry you didn't ask! ;) - Vaizki -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Klaus Schmidinger Sent: 3. helmikuuta 2008 12:17 To: vdr@linuxtv.org Subject: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now? There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the multiproto driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM). In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would make sense to revoke the switch to the multiproto driver and go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch now. If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then. I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR for HDTV before looking into these patches. So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Hi, No, i vote to wait for the DVD-S2 and maybe if Klaus can integrate H.264. regards, Chris On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 11:17 +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the multiproto driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM). In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would make sense to revoke the switch to the multiproto driver and go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch now. If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then. I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR for HDTV before looking into these patches. So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? Klaus ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr -- ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now ?
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No? No. I really want to see in VDR (stable and devel-versions) the fastest implementation the dvb-s2, h.264, ts-recording support. Igor. ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? YES - if it works without any devel-type drivers, just with standard kernel as delivered with debian etch ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
