I propose we setup #linuxtv-without-jews on feenode and coordinate our efforts to take over those fools who run the real LinuxTV scam. -tc On 7/22/07, Uwe Bugla <uwe.bugla@xxxxxx> wrote: > Am Sonntag, 22. Juli 2007 12:41:56 schrieb Johannes Stezenbach: > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2007, Uwe Bugla wrote: > > > As announced I've built a revised tarball plus a Debian package of the > > > current dvb-apps repository, implying your patchset (i. e. human readable > > > characters as a switch for szap, tzap and czap. > > > > > > Unfortunately both packages were rejected without giving reason by the > > > list moderator of linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > If you look at the reject messages, they should say: > > > > Reason: Message body is too big: 404226 bytes with a limit of 60 KB > > and > > Reason: Message body is too big: 517891 bytes with a limit of 60 KB > > > > The limit is there to protect people who don't have broadband > > connectivity, and to protect the list server (with ~2000 list > > subscribers, these two mails would have caused ~1.8 GByte of traffic). > > > > > > Johannes > > > > Sounds logical. But the main reason you unfortunately forgot to mention: > > The limit is there to protect the "highly motivated illustrious" linuxtv > gatekeepers from doing additional good work in order to share good efforts > all around the world. > > I still got my own experiences and views on the difference between what real > sophisticated maintainership means in practice @linuxtv.org in comparison to > the rest of the world-wide linux community. In fact there is a big > difference. > > For example, if I read comments like "you should first ask whether someone > intends to pick it up (by Christoph Pfister in this specific example) the > knife in my pocket opens. > A real sophisticated maintainer picks up such efforts like P. van Gaans patch > set and merges them without making any noise. > > Above that, the filter timeout problem in connection with "scan" still remains > unsolved (wasn't it you, Johannes, who once wrote the scan utility?). > > Why is the scan result still such a drag? Why are the scan results so > unreliable? Why are there channels missing in the final result? > Is it a driver issue or an application issue? > And who can help? Who has got the clue to fix that? > And why does this problem not appear within kaffeine's channel scan? > > I'm not expecting any answer or fix for that problem - I can help myself. > But I would like to know whether I am the only one to have that problem with > the scan utility. > > Uwe > > > _______________________________________________ > > linux-dvb mailing list > > linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx > > http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb > > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-dvb mailing list > linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb > _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
