Jan Hoogenraad wrote: > 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. Sorry Jan, I don't maintain the documentation so I can't comment on that. > > So far, my reaction (for what it's worth) is a NACK. Understood. Thanks anyway for taking the time to review and provide feedback. Regards, Steve _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
