Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2013-01-03 Thread Lucian Muresan
On 01/01/2013 09:52 PM, Lars Hanisch wrote: [...] I must confess that normally threads at a forum are easier to read and understand as mailing list threads in any mail-archive. First you have to found such an archive (or have to know that something like that even exists) and then it's

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2013-01-02 Thread Morfsta
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Lars Hanisch d...@flensrocker.de wrote: This is an invitation: Please create more posts in english at vdr-portal! If a critical mass is passed it will be easier for the ones coming past us. Sure there's only a small international part, but it is there. And of

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2013-01-02 Thread Vidar Tyldum
Den 02.01.2013 15:54, skrev Morfsta: Perhaps a sticky at the top of the forum discussing and encouraging the use of English for non-German speaking users would help and giving some guidance on the best way to approach it, so as to avoid flames. Yes, please! Or just It's OK to post in English /

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2013-01-02 Thread Lars Hanisch
Am 02.01.2013 19:19, schrieb Vidar Tyldum: Den 02.01.2013 15:54, skrev Morfsta: Perhaps a sticky at the top of the forum discussing and encouraging the use of English for non-German speaking users would help and giving some guidance on the best way to approach it, so as to avoid flames.

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2013-01-02 Thread Christopher Reimer
I couldn't realize that there are so many non-German VDR users. I personally don't like to write English. Not because I hate the language, more because I'm worried to do something wrong (grammer, tenses etc.) Christopher ___ vdr mailing list

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2013-01-02 Thread VDR User
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Christopher Reimer c.reimer1...@gmail.com wrote: I couldn't realize that there are so many non-German VDR users. On one hand I guess I understand considering Germany is VDR's birthplace and has strong support there. But on the other hand, if VDR is so popular

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2013-01-01 Thread Luca Olivetti
Al 30/12/12 01:08, En/na Christopher Reimer ha escrit: I don't consider the mailinglist as central spot of developement. Here I'm forced to speak English. Almost all VDR Users are German. And in VDR-Portal I reach the critical mass. With the addition that I am allowed to speak my native

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2013-01-01 Thread Lars Hanisch
Am 01.01.2013 13:40, schrieb Luca Olivetti: Al 30/12/12 01:08, En/na Christopher Reimer ha escrit: I don't consider the mailinglist as central spot of developement. Here I'm forced to speak English. Almost all VDR Users are German. And in VDR-Portal I reach the critical mass. With the

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-31 Thread Vidar Tyldum
31.12.2012 00:54, fnu: As good as vdrportal is as a VDR resource, the language barrier _is_ a problem for english speakers. Same with this mailing list for german speakers ... and now? English isn't just for the British and Americans. I realize that if I start a VDR forum/mailing-list and

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-31 Thread Klaus Schmidinger
On 31.12.2012 09:29, Vidar Tyldum wrote: ... It would be nice to hear what Klaus prefers as the main development channel (notice: *main* development channel, not the only channel). Well, I always considered the VDR mailing list to be the main development channel. But with the recent shitstorm

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-31 Thread Vidar Tyldum
Den 31.12.2012 09:35, skrev Klaus Schmidinger: Well, I always considered the VDR mailing list to be the main development channel. But with the recent shitstorm I'm having second thoughts... Take it as a compliment. It just goes to show how many have come to rely on VDR and that there is an

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-31 Thread fnu
by VDR User user@gmail.com but I guess your friends disagree. Not only my friends, e.g. one guy of an international customer, a US citizen living in Germany since 10-15 years, is not willing to talk in german with us. Just another example, but even our famous foreign workers from all over

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-31 Thread fnu
von Klaus Schmidinger But with the recent shitstorm I'm having second thoughts... Hmm, I had also read shitstorms, this does have a different quality. I would also take it positiv, nobody is questioning your execellent work, in contrary, a lot of do take part of it and are interessted in. So,

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-31 Thread VDR User
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Klaus Schmidinger klaus.schmidin...@tvdr.de wrote: It would be nice to hear what Klaus prefers as the main development channel (notice: *main* development channel, not the only channel). Well, I always considered the VDR mailing list to be the main

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-31 Thread VDR User
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:54 AM, fnu v...@auktion.hostingkunde.de wrote: Not only my friends, e.g. one guy of an international customer, a US citizen living in Germany since 10-15 years, is not willing to talk in german with us. Just another example, but even our famous foreign workers from all

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-30 Thread Christopher Reimer
2012/12/30 fnu v...@auktion.hostingkunde.de: And as far as I remember nobody did complain about the old Makefile structur, and yes I mean nobody, because the two now known just changed it w/o warning. Do what ever you need to do, I appriciate it, but remind always some continuity for all

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-30 Thread Vidar Tyldum
30.12.2012 01:08, Christopher Reimer: Here I'm forced to speak English. Almost all VDR Users are German. And in VDR-Portal I reach the critical mass. With the addition that I am allowed to speak my native language. Okay, now I am really derailing this thread - but think a bit about that one.

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-30 Thread Gerald Dachs
Am 30.12.2012 01:08, schrieb Christopher Reimer: I don't consider the mailinglist as central spot of developement. Here I'm forced to speak English. Almost all VDR Users are German. And in VDR-Portal I reach the critical mass. With the addition that I am allowed to speak my native language.

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-30 Thread Christopher Reimer
Nice 33%!! Then tell me why was there no answer on the mailinglist thread. No answer = everything is ok -- send patch to Klaus 2012/12/30 Gerald Dachs v...@dachsweb.de: Am 30.12.2012 01:08, schrieb Christopher Reimer: I don't consider the mailinglist as central spot of developement. Here

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-30 Thread fnu
von Vidar Tyldum vi...@tyldum.com Why are the majority of the users German - and why does it stay that way? Is it for the greater benefit of VDR? This is not the fault of the german users, VDR is historically a german speaking project, initiated by a german guy, used by the biggest VDR

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-30 Thread Udo Richter
Am 30.12.2012 01:08, schrieb Christopher Reimer: 2012/12/29 Udo Richter udo_rich...@gmx.de: Even if there was an thread in vdr-portal, I did miss it, and there was no word of it in the mailing list, which I always considered to be the central spot of development. Really?

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-30 Thread VDR User
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 4:26 AM, fnu v...@auktion.hostingkunde.de wrote: Why are the majority of the users German - and why does it stay that way? Is it for the greater benefit of VDR? This is not the fault of the german users, VDR is historically a german speaking project, initiated by a

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-30 Thread fnu
As good as vdrportal is as a VDR resource, the language barrier _is_ a problem for english speakers. Same with this mailing list for german speakers ... and now? or feeling like a welcome visitor/member A little tale, if I'm in the US, I have to speak english all time. If my US friends do

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-30 Thread VDR User
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM, fnu v...@auktion.hostingkunde.de wrote: As good as vdrportal is as a VDR resource, the language barrier _is_ a problem for english speakers. Same with this mailing list for german speakers ... and now? I don't recall any german speakers ever expressing a

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-29 Thread Manuel Reimer
Udo Richter wrote: Being actively developed and being needed are two different things. I wouldn't want to drop all the plugins that aren't under active development any more, as this would probably be true for 2/3 of my plugins. If there is really a need for that special unsupported plugin,

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-29 Thread Helmut Auer
If there is really a need for that special unsupported plugin, then the best way to go would be that at least one of all those distributions, who currently maintains that plugin, republishes it somewhere (AFAIR projects.vdr-developer.org was invented for that?). First step could be to apply all

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-29 Thread Manuel Reimer
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Never in my wildest dreams would I have expected such an outrage about this change, which was entirely intended to make things simpler in the future. But if this is not what people want, then let's just stick with the old Makefiles and declare version 1.7.34 a complete

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-29 Thread Christopher Reimer
OK. 50 plugins doesn't sound impossible to deal with. But they have to be in one place, as Manuel mentioned. Name these 50 unmaintained plugins and then we can check when and how they'll be moved to vdr-developer.org. Christopher 2012/12/29 Helmut Auer v...@helmutauer.de: If there is really

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-29 Thread Manuel Reimer
Helmut Auer wrote: We are talking about 100 Plugins. Maybe we can drop the half of these but 50 will be remaining ... No problem. Let's start a discussion about this in a separate thread. I bet that about 20 more plugins aren't worth the effort and so about 30 plugins will be left. Porting

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-29 Thread Lucian Muresan
On 12/29/2012 01:14 PM, Helmut Auer wrote: If there is really a need for that special unsupported plugin, then the best way to go would be that at least one of all those distributions, who currently maintains that plugin, republishes it somewhere (AFAIR projects.vdr-developer.org was invented

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-29 Thread Lucian Muresan
On 12/29/2012 01:07 PM, Manuel Reimer wrote: [..] In context of a plugin, VDR should be something like a backend library. It has to be installed, but the plugin should be compilable from *everywhere* as long as the backend library is there. This is why pkg-config was invented and this is how

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-29 Thread fnu
von Manuel Reimer manuel.rei...@gmx.de The changes in 1.7.34 are a big change into the right direction! FullAck, but really at that time of 1.7.xx? At this time where 1.7.xx is more less saddled by all HDTV users? Many new festures have been postponed after V2 release. Some of them wouldn't

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-29 Thread Klaus Schmidinger
On 29.12.2012 17:52, fnu wrote: von Manuel Reimer manuel.rei...@gmx.de The changes in 1.7.34 are a big change into the right direction! FullAck, but really at that time of 1.7.xx? At this time where 1.7.xx is more less saddled by all HDTV users? Many new festures have been postponed after V2

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-29 Thread fnu
von Klaus Schmidinger klaus.schmidin...@tvdr.de From what I have seen in this thread lately, I don't think the outcry would have been any less then... You're maybe right, but I'm not sure. Because now, everybody does know, these changes will happen soon, no Plugin for V2.1 w/o rework. But

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-29 Thread Udo Richter
Am 28.12.2012 16:38, schrieb Klaus Schmidinger: So should we go back to the Makefiles of version 1.7.33 and declare this area of the program source untouchable forever? Beside all the current whining (and *I* don't exclude myself from that), it is nevertheless a step in the right direction.

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-29 Thread Christopher Reimer
2012/12/29 Udo Richter udo_rich...@gmx.de: Even if there was an thread in vdr-portal, I did miss it, and there was no word of it in the mailing list, which I always considered to be the central spot of development. Really? http://linuxtv.org/pipermail/vdr/2012-November/026813.html There was NO

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-29 Thread Joerg Bornkessel
OK. 50 plugins doesn't sound impossible to deal with. But they have to be in one place, as Manuel mentioned. Name these 50 unmaintained plugins and then we can check when and how they'll be moved to vdr-developer.org. there is a small list, ~30 plugins on

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-29 Thread fnu
von Christopher Reimer c.reimer1...@gmail.com Yes, I am happy with the new makefiles. I'm glad to hear this, but what about all the other developers and users? Developer version back and forth, VDR 1.7.xx has become silently a somewhat stable version over the years, due to it's HDTV

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-29 Thread Gero
On Saturday 29 December 2012 - 18:39:05, fnu wrote: .. or maybe an in between stable release called V1.8 and go ahead with these important changes in V1.9 ... just a thought ... +1 Gero ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-28 Thread Klaus Schmidinger
On 28.12.2012 00:43, Helmut Auer wrote: If I don't accept patches, I'm blamed for slowing down development. If I do accept a patch that causes a little work to adapt to (but looks promising in the long run), I'm being offended by being compared to Louis XIV. I guess you just can't win 'em all...

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-28 Thread Klaus Schmidinger
On 28.12.2012 00:47, Dominic Evans wrote: On 27 Dec 2012, at 23:41, fnu v...@auktion.hostingkunde.de mailto:v...@auktion.hostingkunde.de wrote: Linux wouldn't have been that succesfull, if Linus Torvalds would not had an ear to the needs of others, even business needs ... A Christmas

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-28 Thread Gero
On Friday 28 December 2012 - 09:29:01, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: Well, Linus apparently has very strong feelings about this. However, nowhere in that posting does it say IF YOU BREAK USERSPACE I HATE YOU AND YOU ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON I guess, most of confusion and frictions comes from

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-28 Thread Dominic Evans
On 28 December 2012 09:29, Klaus Schmidinger klaus.schmidin...@tvdr.de wrote: IF YOU BREAK USERSPACE I HATE YOU AND YOU ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON So did *you* (Dominic) just make that up? I'm asking because your posting looks just like a direct quotation from Linus, and I have a hard time

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-28 Thread Dominic Evans
On 28 December 2012 10:07, Gero geronimo...@gmx.de wrote: I guess, most of confusion and frictions comes from the fact, that you use c++ as programming language, but you don't code c++ and you don't think as a c++- developer. Same - you developed a linux app, but you don't care about linux

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-28 Thread Udo Richter
Am 28.12.2012 09:28, schrieb Klaus Schmidinger: Well, if a plugin is no longer actively maintained, it's probably time to drop it. You know what they say about dead horses ;-). Being actively developed and being needed are two different things. I wouldn't want to drop all the plugins that

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-28 Thread Klaus Schmidinger
On 28.12.2012 14:19, Udo Richter wrote: Am 28.12.2012 09:28, schrieb Klaus Schmidinger: Well, if a plugin is no longer actively maintained, it's probably time to drop it. You know what they say about dead horses ;-). Being actively developed and being needed are two different things. I

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-28 Thread Udo Richter
Am 28.12.2012 09:29, schrieb Klaus Schmidinger: On 28.12.2012 00:47, Dominic Evans wrote: IF YOU BREAK USERSPACE I HATE YOU AND YOU ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON Not breaking userspace is, of course, the right thing to do in a *stable* version of any software. In Linux context, it actually means

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-28 Thread Udo Richter
Am 28.12.2012 14:37, schrieb Klaus Schmidinger: On 28.12.2012 14:19, Udo Richter wrote: Plus, any updated plugin (at least any built-in plugin) does no longer create the *.so.$APIVERSION file, and there's no generic way to do this. Well, then maybe this works (haven't tested it): for i in

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-28 Thread Marx
I don't think arguing which userspace is bigger is so important. I'm rather silent user and use VDR a few years now. First I compiled it from scratch because there were no other option. Then I tried to use packages but failed. Packages were outdated, only a few plugins in repository. No good

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-28 Thread Klaus Schmidinger
On 28.12.2012 14:42, Udo Richter wrote: Am 28.12.2012 09:29, schrieb Klaus Schmidinger: On 28.12.2012 00:47, Dominic Evans wrote: IF YOU BREAK USERSPACE I HATE YOU AND YOU ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON Not breaking userspace is, of course, the right thing to do in a *stable* version of any

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-28 Thread Klaus Schmidinger
On 28.12.2012 16:38, Klaus Schmidinger wrote: On 28.12.2012 14:42, Udo Richter wrote: Am 28.12.2012 09:29, schrieb Klaus Schmidinger: On 28.12.2012 00:47, Dominic Evans wrote: IF YOU BREAK USERSPACE I HATE YOU AND YOU ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON Not breaking userspace is, of course, the right

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-28 Thread Gerald Dachs
Am 28.12.2012 16:38, schrieb Klaus Schmidinger: So should we go back to the Makefiles of version 1.7.33 and declare this area of the program source untouchable forever? +1 Gerald !DSPAM:50ddc50a174441059718148! ___ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-28 Thread Lars Hanisch
Am 28.12.2012 16:38, schrieb Klaus Schmidinger: So should we go back to the Makefiles of version 1.7.33 and declare this area of the program source untouchable forever? Maybe this would be the easiest solution, and I wouldn't get bashed, offended and insulted that much any more. Never in my

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-28 Thread fnu
Let's not waste more mailing list space with this nonsense. I got it already, you're way of installation and usage of VDR is the only valid, all others are stupid. Your statements here are the one and only truth, even so only you are allowed to make conclusions. Yes man, you're the very last

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-28 Thread VDR User
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:19 AM, fnu v...@auktion.hostingkunde.de wrote: Let's not waste more mailing list space with this nonsense. I got it already, you're way of installation and usage of VDR is the only valid, all others are stupid. Your statements here are the one and only truth, even

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread Reinhard Nissl
Hi, Am 26.12.2012 15:54, schrieb Manuel Reimer: I think that we should keep the possibility to configure highlevel plugin options from a central place like plugins.conf just as Make.config did up to VDR-1.7.33. What is your plan? Do you want to build plugins the old way inside the VDR source

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread Klaus Schmidinger
On 26.12.2012 20:19, Udo Richter wrote: ... Oh, and by the way, with introducing $(CWD) some previously relative paths got hard coded, so moving these builds around or accessing them from different mount points might now be broken. For example, my default lib dir changed from ./PLUGINS/lib to

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread Manuel Reimer
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: ...still considering what to do with the plugin configuration stuff. Currently I tend to put a plgcfg entry into vdr.pc, since apparently everybody wants this to be somewhere else. I'm just glad Linux distribution managers don't build cars - otherwise we would most

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread Klaus Schmidinger
On 27.12.2012 17:22, Manuel Reimer wrote: Klaus Schmidinger wrote: ...still considering what to do with the plugin configuration stuff. Currently I tend to put a plgcfg entry into vdr.pc, since apparently everybody wants this to be somewhere else. I'm just glad Linux distribution managers don't

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread Manuel Reimer
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: This was more like a general rant about Linux distributions all wanting there files in different locations. This is common on most Unix systems. There are common paths where specific types of files should be placed to. If you are used to the common paths, then you'll

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread Klaus Schmidinger
On 27.12.2012 17:43, Manuel Reimer wrote: Klaus Schmidinger wrote: This was more like a general rant about Linux distributions all wanting there files in different locations. This is common on most Unix systems. There are common paths where specific types of files should be placed to. If you

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread Helmut Auer
I'm just glad Linux distribution managers don't build cars - otherwise we would most likely be long dead before we find the brake pedal... ;-) As a distribution manger I have to disagree ;) All I'm doing now, is to wait til you find a solution which won't be changed within the next five days

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread Gerald Dachs
Am 27.12.2012 19:11, schrieb Helmut Auer: I'm just glad Linux distribution managers don't build cars - otherwise we would most likely be long dead before we find the brake pedal... ;-) As a distribution manger I have to disagree ;) All I'm doing now, is to wait til you find a solution which

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread fnu
... there are way too much changes at the moment :) FullAck, but the number of changes are not the issue, it's more the sustainability and the time frame within the changes. Looking to the last 5 versions, each of them do look allmost like a complete new version. There is allmost no time for

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread VDR User
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:20 AM, fnu v...@auktion.hostingkunde.de wrote: ... there are way too much changes at the moment :) FullAck, but the number of changes are not the issue, it's more the sustainability and the time frame within the changes. Looking to the last 5 versions, each of them

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread Helmut Auer
Am 27.12.2012 19:11, schrieb Helmut Auer: I'm just glad Linux distribution managers don't build cars - otherwise we would most likely be long dead before we find the brake pedal... ;-) As a distribution manger I have to disagree ;) All I'm doing now, is to wait til you find a solution which

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread Matthias Schniedermeyer
On 27.12.2012 13:21, VDR User wrote: On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:20 AM, fnu v...@auktion.hostingkunde.de wrote: ... there are way too much changes at the moment :) FullAck, but the number of changes are not the issue, it's more the sustainability and the time frame within the changes.

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread Gerald Dachs
Am 27.12.2012 22:21, schrieb VDR User: On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:20 AM, fnu v...@auktion.hostingkunde.de wrote: But don't forget, you don't make a solution liek VDR a success or BBS like vdr-portal only with a few make; make install users. Over 95% of VDR users are using a distribution. I

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread Gerald Dachs
One last question: Am 27.12.2012 22:21, schrieb VDR User: And of those users, most don't even install VDR, they simply run it from the source dir. So, real VDR user don't need the install Target in the makefile and distributors, at least me, don't need it too. It seems there must be another

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread fnu
Keep in mind, all these changes are occurring in the _developer_ version of VDR, not stable. Oh damn, I did not even realize this ... ^^ Nobody really want to use VDR 1.6.0 anymore these days, in Europe we would not be able to watch HDTV. Facing this fact VDR 1.7.3+ is more than just a

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread Klaus Schmidinger
On 27.12.2012 23:40, fnu wrote: ... But the way of the last changes, in best manner of Louis XIV, ignoring all other needs around can't be the right way. All I did was to accept a patch from Christopher Reimer that removed some redundancy in the Makefiles and would better isolate the plugins

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread Helmut Auer
If I don't accept patches, I'm blamed for slowing down development. If I do accept a patch that causes a little work to adapt to (but looks promising in the long run), I'm being offended by being compared to Louis XIV. I guess you just can't win 'em all... You're absolutely right here. The

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread Dominic Evans
On 27 Dec 2012, at 23:41, fnu v...@auktion.hostingkunde.de wrote: Linux wouldn't have been that succesfull, if Linus Torvalds would not had an ear to the needs of others, even business needs ... A Christmas message from Linus – “IF YOU BREAK USERSPACE I HATE YOU AND YOU ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON”

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread fnu
Dominic, good one! I know, a coin has always two sides, but hack, look where Linux nowadays is . ^^ Cheers Frank Im Auftrag von Dominic Evans Gesendet: Freitag, 28. Dezember 2012 00:47 An: VDR Mailing List Betreff: Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread VDR User
Matthias Schniedermeyer: Pointing out that the last stable release of VDR having an old timestamp has nothing to do with people _choosing_ to use the developer version, which is warned and well-known to possibly contain changes that will cause problems for those expecting stable behavior. The

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread Matthias Schniedermeyer
On 27.12.2012 16:55, VDR User wrote: Matthias Schniedermeyer: Pointing out that the last stable release of VDR having an old timestamp has nothing to do with people _choosing_ to use the developer version, which is warned and well-known to possibly contain changes that will cause problems for

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread fnu
I think fnu is wrong in his assumption that over 95% of VDR users I'm not wrong, the users compiling VDR from scratch are far in minority. Again I'm not just talking about ready to run ISO images. There are plenty of silent users working the packages out of Linux' distros repositories, Debian,

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread VDR User
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 5:29 PM, fnu v...@auktion.hostingkunde.de wrote: I'm not wrong, the users compiling VDR from scratch are far in minority. Again I'm not just talking about ready to run ISO images. You make this claim but the opposite is observed on mailing lists, forums, and irc. Since

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread fnu
users when there's plenty of evidence that says otherwise. You did not provide any ... you also just pray your truth ... It may be hard for you to accept but reality is that VDR has a successful life way past yavdr and `apt-get install vdr`. Yes, I know, I have been part of it. I still keep

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-27 Thread VDR User
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM, fnu v...@auktion.hostingkunde.de wrote: users when there's plenty of evidence that says otherwise. You did not provide any ... you also just pray your truth ... This mailing list, the freebsd multimedia mailing list, forums such as vdr-portal, dvbn, and

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-26 Thread Christopher Reimer
2012/12/25 Klaus Schmidinger klaus.schmidin...@tvdr.de: 3.) the file should be included into plugin Makefiles after having set PLUGIN and VERSION to be able to have some plugin-/version-dependent configuration. Agreed. No. Not agreed. Just use DEFINES+= in Make.config, and if that

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-26 Thread Reinhard Nissl
Hi, Am 26.12.2012 09:53, schrieb Christopher Reimer: 2012/12/25 Klaus Schmidinger klaus.schmidin...@tvdr.de: 3.) the file should be included into plugin Makefiles after having set PLUGIN and VERSION to be able to have some plugin-/version-dependent configuration. Agreed. No. Not agreed.

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-26 Thread Manuel Reimer
Reinhard Nissl wrote: I understand that this seems to be a quite simple solution, because in the end, almost any other configuration option will be converted to either compiler or linker settings. But it's quite lowlevel and one has to dig through the Makefile in depth to extract the necessary

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-26 Thread Udo Richter
I've been doing things with Make.config too, and would like it to be available again. My plugins usually followed this pattern: -include $(VDRDIR)/Make.global -include $(VDRDIR)/Make.config -include Make.config so you always had the chance to have optional control without patching makefiles.

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-26 Thread Timothy D. Lenz
I prefer to keep files for a given program together in that programs tree. Not scatter all over the computer like ms. The only thing for vdr I move is the recordings because of the space required. All settings/config files for vdr belong in the vdr directory tree. On 12/25/2012 1:07 PM, Klaus

Re: [vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35

2012-12-25 Thread Klaus Schmidinger
On 25.12.2012 20:47, Reinhard Nissl wrote: Hi, as mentioned in the VDR-1.7.34 announcement, Make.config is now gone for plugins. Make.config gave me the opportunity to control features or behavior of plugins and VDR at a central location without having the need to adjust each plugin's