Hi, Am Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2007 13:46 schrieb Marvin Hankley: > 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 Right, so I'll apply your file (as there is no better option I can think of). Hmm, maybe a small tool that helps people to check whether their scan file is still ok or to actually produce a valid&correct scan file (from another scan file or whatever) would be feasible - let's see ... (this should simplify users to deal with that stuff so that more involvement is possible in cases where no authoritative source of information exists). Thanks, Christoph _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
