Hi! > > So, I made the complete list. I > > know scan is capable of detecting other transponders from a smaller > > number but do we lose anything from having a more complete list than > > is strictly necessary? > > The problem arises when some of them become invalid because you get timeouts > then. It's also a bit more difficult to maintain them (but that's the case > anyway ;) - hmm, will see and think a bit about this ... the main issue > remains: where to get an authoritative source of information? Right, that is a problem, so I guess there must be some balance between receiving timeouts on one hand and not receiving the full list of channels on the other hand. Personally, I'd be slightly inclined towards enabling users to get the full list of channels. I'd think re-scanning is not something people are going to do too often, so perhaps if it might potentially take a little longer, that could be a price worth paying, in order to get the full list of channels? Another potential good use for a complete list is when searching for feeds. These transponders tend to be only used occasionally and I doubt they will appear in NITs. So, I suspect that the only way of detecting these channels will be to manually scan the transponder list. Given all that, these are just text files in some obscure corner of the filesystem. My full list containing all the transponders from the four satellites at 28.2E was only 4 Kb, so perhaps it might be feasible to ship _two_ channel lists, where available? A minimal starter file and, where available, a more complete list? I'm not aware of any authoritative source of information. What I used to produce my list was a combination of two internet sites, http://www.lyngsat.com/ and http://en.kingofsat.net/ (another good one is http://www.satcodx.com/ ), and then verifying those against the satellite itself. Cheers, Marv _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
