On 2/25/06, Marcel Siegert wrote: > > While using the v4 API method (each capability type gets an > > independant typedef) would certainly be more flexible, it seems to me, > > it would require more extensive changes in the apps to support. > > > > yes, at first i thought the same way. > > but, each application that will use DVB-S2 and corresponding modulations ect. > must be overworked. > so it is not a real extensive change to existing apps. it is just IF dvb-s2 > should be used, they have to implemented a bit more than just a new frontend tuning struct, > everything existing wont be touched. I'm willing to buy this. I'm not sure I agree, but I guess it depends on how long until v4 is released (after all, it is just a question of how many additional features are needed before then). But the dsicussion seems to have branched off toward implementing more and more stuff into user space. I think this would be a bad way to go at the moment (just put this stuff into the v4 API instead). Doing so raises the bar substatially for dvb apps, and I wouldn't be surprised if they just ignore DVB-S2 claiming not enough kernels support it, and not enough people have the cards, rather than needing to change all their code to support a user-space library (assuming I understand what is being proposed) Instead, why not patch in the support we need, and work on a grand consistant plan for the v4 API, which will give user apps a clean place to do restructuring? _______________________________________________ linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
