On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 22:17 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Bastien Nocera wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 11:24 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > >> Hans de Goede (j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx) said: > >>> See: > >>> > >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterWebcamSupport > >> Any reason a shim library is simpler than porting apps to V4L2? > > > > Same question here. There's a good number of applications that are > > either obsoleted by a v4l2 version, or support both versions. Which > > applications were you thinking of supporting with this scheme? > > > > Unless there's tens of open source apps that would need changing, or a > > couple of (useful) proprietary ones that don't support v4l2, the library > > is probably not very useful to have (especially as you probably wouldn't > > be able to port _all_ the v4l1 drivers to v4l2). > > > > See my reaction to Bill's question, and yes there are a few usefull proprietary > apps in the mix unfortunately. Do you have a list of those apps? Both the proprietary ones and the Open Source ones. For the latter, it could be more interesting to create a guide for the conversion from V4L1 to V4L2, and see whether Fedora maintainers of those projects can help out with the conversion, or at least submit it upstream for consideration. > > You might also want to see what can be done to remove GStreamer's V4L2 > > plugin's experimental status: > > http://tinyurl.com/4ft7ej > > > > That definitely the plan as I want cheese to be working 100% out of the box. Great stuff. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
