Dear people. Let me introduce my position. I've bought an unsupported board. The hardware developer gave me some code, derived from the Windows driver. I'm trying to tidy up the code sufficiently for inclusion. What bothers me about this discussion, is that NO technical facts pro or contra are exchanged, and that it seems like a personal and/or progress issue. Looking at: http://linuxtv.org/docs.php I find that neither party includes an update on the Documentation tree http://linuxtv.org/hg/v4l-dvb/file/tip/linux/Documentation/dvb/ This means that actually trying to find out the pros and cons of what is proposed must be derived from reading all the code and/or walking through some years' worth of mail group contents. So my questions are: 1) Why are the latex sources of the API documentation still maintained in CVS ? http://linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/DVB/doc/ 2) Are both solutions bit-for-bit compatible with the interfaces as published on : http://linuxtv.org/downloads/linux-dvb-api-1.0.0.pdf 3) If so: what is the problem ? Both conform to the standard. 4) If not so: please provide updated documentation for both solutions, so that we can make a trade-off based on high-level descriptions and consistency rather than based on lots of code of either side. So far, my reaction (for what it's worth) is a NACK. Steven Toth wrote: > Regarding the multiproto situation: > .... > 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. > -- Jan Hoogenraad Hoogenraad Interface Services Postbus 2717 3500 GS Utrecht _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
