> People I know dealing with this issue pad the channel numbers
> by adding a set number. For example, if provider A and provider
> B both use - for their channel numbers, the user pads
> one of the providers by adding say 1 to the channel numbers
> thus having one provider retain
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Halim Sahin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi vdr user
Hi.
> Outdated regular integer uy it works and it is easy to handle.
Regular integers are whole numbers. 6.1 for example, is not a whole number.
> aha you can decide that this subnumbering stuff is better?
The remotes that come with Nexus video cards have a telephone stile num pad
with both "*" and "#"
- Original Message -
From: "Udo Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "VDR Mailing List"
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: [v
Hi vdr user
On Sa, Mär 08, 2008 at 09:47:01 -0800, VDR User wrote:
> replace the outdated regular integers with something better suited for
> the task.
Outdated regular integer uy it works and it is easy to handle.
aha you can decide that this subnumbering stuff is better?
Sorry vdr works great
On 03/08/08 18:47, VDR User wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 3:05 AM, Udo Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And don't even think about using floating point numbers for channels.
>> Why? For example, because there is no floating point representation for
>> 1.1, the nearest binary floats are 1.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 3:05 AM, Udo Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And don't even think about using floating point numbers for channels.
> Why? For example, because there is no floating point representation for
> 1.1, the nearest binary floats are 1.09986677 and
> 1.10
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Udo Richter wrote:
> The most realistic way to implement this is to add yet another 'name'
> system for channels, so that the VDR-internal channel 15 is
> 'KUAT'/'6.0'. That way, VDR could continue to use the 'simple'
> numbering, and just the channel switching would use the ne
Timothy D. Lenz wrote:
> which, but not all, will be shut down in a year. For ATSC .1 is the primary
> channel and .2, .3, etc are the sub channels. The "#" on the remote could
> be used for the "." In the channels.conf an ATSC next channel number would
> look like:
> :@13.1
Well, at least I've n
ot;VDR Mailing List"
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [vdr] sub channel numbering system
> Timothy D. Lenz wrote:
> > Would it be possible to add support for the subchannel numbering system
used
> > with ATSC? Exmple of the channels in our area:
>
>
minor though as those seem to tend to be data channels with nothing on them.
- Original Message -
From: "VDR User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "VDR Mailing List"
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: [vdr] sub channel numbering system
> On Fri, Ma
nis Potgieter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "VDR Mailing List"
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [vdr] sub channel numbering system
> So if provider 1 broadcasts a 2.1 channel and provider 2 also
> broadcasts a 2.1 channel and you as a vdr user can have mo
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Alex Lasnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since VDR needs to be patched for ATSC anyway, I'll consider adding
> sub-channel support in the next ATSC patch. But my first impression is
> that such a change will likely be very ugly and break many things...
>
> Howev
Timothy D. Lenz wrote:
> Would it be possible to add support for the subchannel numbering system used
> with ATSC? Exmple of the channels in our area:
Since VDR needs to be patched for ATSC anyway, I'll consider adding
sub-channel support in the next ATSC patch. But my first impression is
that s
Then perhaps the core should expose the required features, so that
Klaus can keep it his default way but a plugin can extend without
having to patch the core. The end user can then choose from a range of
plugins for his/her provider(s) in the way they think is best.
On 3/7/08, VDR User <[EMAIL PRO
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Theunis Potgieter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if provider 1 broadcasts a 2.1 channel and provider 2 also
> broadcasts a 2.1 channel and you as a vdr user can have more than 1
> provider. What will the channel numbering scheme be for Provider 2?
> Will this in
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> Channel numbers are *numbers*, *integer* numbers!
> There's a first channel, and a second one, and a third one,
> and they are numbered 1, 2 and 3. Now what's a "2.1" channel?
> Is that "ten percent more than the second channel"?
Well, integer channe
So if provider 1 broadcasts a 2.1 channel and provider 2 also
broadcasts a 2.1 channel and you as a vdr user can have more than 1
provider. What will the channel numbering scheme be for Provider 2?
Will this introduce a bouqet in vdr?
On 3/7/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On F
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Klaus Schmidinger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> VDR stores channel numbers as integers. So if you want to
> have a numbering scheme where you have channels "between" other
> channels, you need to make room for these additional entries.
> And the only way I see to
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 04:57:50PM +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> On 03/07/08 16:31, VDR User wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Klaus Schmidinger
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 03/06/08 21:13, Timothy D. Lenz wrote:
> >> > Well, ".", "#", "*", something in the channels.conf. "
So what happens when the sub number was 2.10 is it now 21? And 2.11
becomes 21? I don't understand why there are such numbers to begin
with. Why not just map 2.1 to the next available open number, giving
the user the choice to move the channels in any order afterwards?
my 2c
On 3/7/08, Klaus Sch
On 03/07/08 16:31, VDR User wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Klaus Schmidinger
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 03/06/08 21:13, Timothy D. Lenz wrote:
>> > Well, ".", "#", "*", something in the channels.conf. "0" is not a valid
>> > notation because 0 is part of the number system. 40
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Klaus Schmidinger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 03/06/08 21:13, Timothy D. Lenz wrote:
> > Well, ".", "#", "*", something in the channels.conf. "0" is not a valid
> > notation because 0 is part of the number system. 40 won't work for KVOA
> > because 40 is KHR
Hi!
On Thursday 06 March 2008 21:13:25 Timothy D. Lenz wrote:
> Well, ".", "#", "*", something in the channels.conf. "0" is not a
> valid notation because 0 is part of the number system. 40 won't work
> for KVOA because 40 is KHRR. And when displayed it should be "."
We are talking about channel
be "."
Well, 40 would become 400, accordingly.
Just add a 0 to each channel number (or two zeros, if you have two digit
sub channel numbers).
Klaus
> - Original Message -
> From: "Klaus Schmidinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 0
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Timothy D. Lenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Like it or not Sub channels are here to stay and the "." is the standard for
> denoting a sub number. "vdr-1.5.15"
Can't argue with that! ;)
___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv
Like it or not Sub channels are here to stay and the "." is the standard for
denoting a sub number. "vdr-1.5.15"
- Original Message -
From: "Klaus Schmidinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 1:49 AM
Subject: Re: [vdr] sub chann
t;Klaus Schmidinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 1:49 AM
Subject: Re: [vdr] sub channel numbering system
> On 03/06/08 00:49, Timothy D. Lenz wrote:
> > Would it be possible to add support for the subchannel numbering system
used
> > with
On 03/06/08 17:36, VDR User wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Klaus Schmidinger
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't like that dot notation.
>>
>> You could add a '0' to the old channels and leave out the '.', as in
>>
>> 40KVOA
>> 41KVOAD
>> 60KUAT
>> 61KUATD1
>>
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Klaus Schmidinger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't like that dot notation.
>
> You could add a '0' to the old channels and leave out the '.', as in
>
> 40KVOA
> 41KVOAD
> 60KUAT
> 61KUATD1
> 62KUATK
> 63KUATV
> 64KUATC
> 90
On 03/06/08 00:49, Timothy D. Lenz wrote:
> Would it be possible to add support for the subchannel numbering system used
> with ATSC? Exmple of the channels in our area:
>
> 4 KVOA
> 4.1KVOAD
> 6 KUAT
> 6.1KUATD1
> 6.2KUATK
> 6.3KUATV
> 6.4KUATC
> 9 KGUN
> 9.1
Would it be possible to add support for the subchannel numbering system used
with ATSC? Exmple of the channels in our area:
4 KVOA
4.1KVOAD
6 KUAT
6.1KUATD1
6.2KUATK
6.3KUATV
6.4KUATC
9 KGUN
9.1KGUND
11 KMSB
11.1 KMSBH
13 KOLD
13.1 KOLD-DT
14
31 matches
Mail list logo
