Hi, sorry for this interruption, but what about merging both CVSs in the style of dvb-kernel (with the kernel-tree + a build-dvb and build-v4l which will link the needed files via "getlinks"). Will it raise the maintenance-effort too much? Johannes, Mauro? Does it have any disadvantages I'm not aware of? best regards, Patrick. -- Mail: patrick.boettcher@xxxxxxx WWW: http://www.wi-bw.tfh-wildau.de/~pboettch/ On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > Michael Krufky wrote: >> Hartmut Hackmann wrote: >>> Just 2 notes: >>> 1) I would not call -rc and -mm kernels current. They are hacker kernels. >> >> -rc 's are PRE-current, and -mm 's are hacker kernels. I agree with >> you, that neither are considered the "current" kernel, although Linus' >> stable -rc tree is quite reliable. > > Linus only merges stable, tested patches, so calling -rc "hacker" > kernels is just wrong. Of course the large amount of patches > can still cause problems, but they are usually minor. > > Normally users neither use -rc kernels nor CVS. They only > use drivers from CVS if they have a problem with the stuff > in the latest stable kernel. In that case I think it is > legitimate to require them to use the latest -rc kernel. > After all CVS is for developers, not for users. > >> ...video4linux cvs will compile with 2.6.13-rc2-mm2 or later, due to >> add-type-checking-to-pm_message_t-bttv-fix.patch and friends... This is >> what Mauro is talking about below: >> >> Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> >>> 3) Changes at linux tree that affected V4L: >>> b) A small change at suspend code. >>> >>> >> ...small change, but big effect. Forces us to use -mm series for >> development. > > I don't feel comfortable with -mm as there is sometimes just too > much unstable/experimental stuff in there. Not that I had any > bad experiences with -mm, but I wouldn't feel comfortable > requiring anyone to use it. > >>> I basically agree that we should not have stuff maintained by the DVB >>> guys >>> in the video4linux cvs but it is too early to remove it. >> >> You're not alone... my entire development model has turned upside-down, >> now that the DVB stuff has been taken out of v4l cvs. However, even >> though I find it inconvenient, I know that this is something that has >> needed to happen for a long time. I'm not sure what you mean by "too >> early to remove it," besides the fact that now anyone that wants to use >> the lgdt3302 frontend has to upgrade to a 2.6.13 kernel, as there is no >> longer a method to install it from cvs.... but once again, I must say >> that the dvb stuff really doesn't belong in video4linux cvs. The only >> problem is, now it is more difficult to develop & test between both >> trees... >> >> Actually, this makes wide-scale testing VERY difficult. dvb-kernel just >> seems too complicated for the novice user to install from. > > If you use latest -rc kernel it is actually very easy. What is difficult > is to use dvb-kernel CVS together with video4linux CVS. As an easy > (but maybe ugly) workaround you could write a script that creates > a number of softlinks from dvb-kernel CVS and video4linux CVS > in your build directory (like dvb-kernel/build-2.6/getlinks). > >> The only solution that I can think of that *might* make everyone happy, >> would be for video4linux and linux-dvb to release snapshots at the same >> time. It would be easiest for users if they could grab one snapshot >> that contained the entire media tree, but that might be asking too much.... > > That won't work unless someone with more available time than I have > steps in to do it.
