Bastien Nocera wrote:
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.
No list atm, noteworthy closed source ones are flash (adobe version) and
skype. Opensource v4l1 viewers I know about are camomara, spcaview. But
quite a few v4l2 apps also don't work with all v4l2 cams due to not
supporting all needed colorformats, examples of these are for example
xawtv and luvcview.
I must say my primary focus at the moment is getting drivers cleaned up
and merged in the mainline, but the userspace side of things definetely
needs work too.
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
