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 confi
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 met
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
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/V
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
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,
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 t
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 stabl
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 freezin
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
>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.
The DVB subtitles are worth it, IMNSHO.
Cheers,
Jan
___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi
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
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 t
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 l
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
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
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 (sti
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
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
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 componen
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-b
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
> >
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 D
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
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
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
>ver
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
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
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, bu
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
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,
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
tr
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 wo
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
> featu
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?
>
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 wo
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
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
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 tho
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
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 leas
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.
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
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
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 K
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 r
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 sitt
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
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://
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 PROTE
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 fo
> 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
danger
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
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
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 dis
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 o
> 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
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.li
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 or No?
>
Yes.
I need UTF-8 support _and_ a stable vdr;-)
_
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.
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
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 :)
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 maili
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
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@linux
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
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 m
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.
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
inc
Answering myself. I've changed script to:
console output
respawn
script
LANG=ru_RU.UTF-8
export LANG
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
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
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.
> Develo
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 th
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 Ts
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
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@linu
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.
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
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 m
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
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
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:
Title
ЛУЧШИЕ
КИÐОТРЮКИ-2007
so they are HTML encoded. How to fix that?
My system is Ubun
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
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
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
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
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 be
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 f
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
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@linuxt
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 su
> 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,
However, if most people will vote no, on upcoming version with you
should allow user to build vdr without multip
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/l
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 th
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
alr
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
--
_
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-r
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 ver
> >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.
___
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
