On Fri, 6 Mar 2009, Trent Piepho wrote: > On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Trent Piepho wrote: > > > ALSA used a partial tree, but their system was much worse than v4l-dvb's. > > > I think the reason more systems don't do it is that setting up the build > > > system we have with v4l-dvb was a lot of work. They don't have that. > > > > Right, it was a lot of work, it is still quite a bit of work (well, I'm > > not doing that work directly, but it affetcs me too, when I have to adjust > > patches, that I generated from a complete kernel tree to fit > > compatibility-"emhanced" versions), and it is not going to be less work. > > Why must you generate your patches from a different tree? One could just > as well say that the linux kernel indentation style is more work, since > they use GNU style have to translate their patch from a re-indented tree. [snip] Hans has already answered your question very well in this thread. I don't think I can add anything. Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
