On 08/29/2008 08:29 PM, Steven Toth wrote: > Regarding the multiproto situation: > > A number of developers, maintainers and users are unhappy with the > multiproto situation, actually they've been unhappy for a considerable > amount of time. The linuxtv developer community (to some degree) is seen > as a joke and a bunch in-fighting people. Multiproto is a great > demonstration of this. [1] The multiproto project has gone too far, for > too long and no longer has any credibility in the eyes of many people. > > In response, a number developers have agreed that "enough is enough" and > "it's time to take a new direction", for these developers the technical, > political and personal cost of multiproto is too high. These developers > have decided to make an announcement. > > Mauro Chehab, Michael Krufky, Patrick Boettcher and myself are hereby > announcing that we no longer support multiproto and are forming a > smaller dedicated project group which is focusing on adding next > generation S2/ISDB-T/DVB-H/DVB-T2/DVB-SH support to the kernel through a > different and simpler API. > > Basic patches and demo code for this API is currently available here. > > http://www.steventoth.net/linux/s2 > > Does it even work? Yes > Is this new API complete? No > Is it perfect? No, we've already had feedback on structural and > namingspace changes that people would like to see. > Does it have bugs? Of course, we have a list of things we already know > we want to fix. > > but ... > > Is the new approach flexible? Yes, we're moving away from passing fixed > modulation structures into the kernel. > Can we add to it without breaking the future ABI when unforseen > modulations types occur? Yes > Does it preserve backwards compatibility? Yes > Importantly, is the overall direction correct? Yes > Does it impact existing frontend drivers? No. > What's the impact to dvb-core? Small. > What's the impact to application developers? None, unless an application > developer wants to support the new standards - binary compatibility! > > We want feedback and we want progress, we aim to achieve it. > > Importantly, this project group seeks your support. > > If you also feel frustrated by the multiproto situation and agree in > principle with this new approach, and the overall direction of the API > changes, then we welcome you and ask you to help us. > > Growing the list of supporting names by 100%, and allowing us to publish > your name on the public mailing list, would show the non-maintainer > development community that we recognize the problem and we're taking > steps to correct the problem. We want to make LinuxTV a perfect platform > for S2, ISDB-T and other advanced modulation types, without using the > multiproto patches. > > We're not asking you for technical help, although we'd like that :) , > we're just asking for your encouragement to move away from multiproto. > > If you feel that you want to support our movement then please help us by > acking this email. > > Regards - Steve, Mike, Patrick and Mauro. > > Acked-by: Patrick Boettcher <pb@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Michael Krufky <mkrufky@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Steven Toth <stoth@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > * [1]. Rather than point out the issues with multiproto here, take a > look at the patches and/or read the comments on the mailing lists. > > _______________________________________________ > linux-dvb mailing list > linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb > It's pretty clear to me multiproto is likely never going to make it to the kernel. And the things you sum up here sound good. I haven't used multiproto much, and I understood some parts of it are a pain from dev-POV. And stuff that doesn't go in-kernel gets little support from applications. Also, if we would NOT accept the solution you propose now, I see linux-DVB getting killed off altogether, more (other) developers working on multiproto and eventually the (atm messy) multiproto project (or some spinoff) going in-kernel, replacing linux-DVB. That's radical. I'm not even sure that's possible. But I think it should be said it's an alternative. Since you are the current linux-DVB developers and you support this new solution, I'll support you and am willing to abandon multiproto (haven't used it much anyway). On the other hand: if more people prefer multiproto and it grows seriously and goes in-kernel (after which enduser apps would start supporting it), I'll install that on my machine. In short, the most important thing to me, an enduser: I want a solution that for now brings me DVB-S2 and will later on be capable of supporting new standards. For now, I am willing to support this new solution. Both because you support and, and because it sounds good. Being an ignorant enduser I can't judge much other things. Acked-by: P. van Gaans (please no unsolicited bulk mail) _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
