hermann pitton wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 03.04.2008, 01:38 +0200 schrieb hermann pitton: > > Hi again, > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 02.04.2008, 22:47 +0400 schrieb Andrew Junev: > > > Hello Hermann, > > > > > > Thanks a lot for this detailed explanation! > > > I really appreciate your help! > > > > > > One small question: does it mean that kernels 2.6.24.5 or 2.6.24.6 > > > _should_ have this patch already included? > > > > > > > seems we hang in current stable kernel rules. > > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob_plain;f=Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt;hb=HEAD > > > > If we go back to 2.6.23 level, that patch might have less than 100 lines > > with context, but we break the > > > > - It must fix only one thing > > > > rule, since we break the 2.6.24 LifeView Trio DVB-S support too then. > > > > Seems sombody with such a device should reopen the bug on Bugzilla ... > > > > Hi Guys, > > should we really let hang it like this on 2.6.24? > > I'm not that happy with a recommendation for the distributions to pick > something out of it. > > If we should go back to 2.6.23 level, so far nobody seems to have > realized a improvement for the LifeView Trio stuff, I'm not against it. > > The changeset in question to revert is mercurial 6579. > > If nobody else is interested and no comments, I also don't care anymore. (Basically I don't care because I am tired of discussing kernel politics.) Imho a fix should be applied, no matter how many lines it has. If that is not possible the offending patch should be reverted in 2.6.24.x. CU Oliver -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- VDR Remote Plugin 0.4.0: http://www.escape-edv.de/endriss/vdr/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
