On Thursday 11 March 2010 15:31:32 Devin Heitmueller wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Douglas Schilling Landgraf > <dougsland@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 03/10/2010 02:04 AM, hermann pitton wrote: > >> Hi Hans, both, > >> > >> Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 08:48 +0100 schrieb Hans Verkuil: > >>> It's nice to see this new tree, that should be make it easier to develop > >>> utilities! > >>> > >>> After a quick check I noticed that the i2c-id.h header was copied from the > >>> kernel. This is not necessary. The only utility that includes this is v4l2-dbg > >>> and that one no longer needs it. Hans, can you remove this? > >>> > >>> The second question is whether anyone would object if alevt is moved from > >>> dvb-apps to v4l-utils? It is much more appropriate to have that tool in > >>> v4l-utils. > >> > >> i wonder that this stays such calm, hopefully a good sign. > >> > >> In fact alevt analog should come with almost every distribution, but the > >> former alevt-dvb, named now only alevt, well, might be ok in some > >> future, is enhanced for doing also dvb-t-s and hence there ATM. > >> > >>> Does anyone know of other unmaintained but useful tools that we might merge > >>> into v4l-utils? E.g. xawtv perhaps? > >> > >> If for xawtv could be some more care, ships also since close to ever > >> with alevtd, that would be fine, but I'm not sure we are talking about > >> tools anymore in such case, since xawtv4x, tvtime and mpeg4ip ;) for > >> example are also there and unmaintained. > >> > > > > I think would be nice to hear a word from Devin, which have been working in tvtime. Devin? > > Sorry, I've been sick for the last couple of days and not actively on email. > > I don't think it's a good idea to consolidate applications like xawtv > and tvtime into the v4l2-utils codebase. The existing v4l2-utils is > nice because it's small and what the packages provides what it says it > does - v4l2 *utilities*. I wouldn't consider full blown tv viewing > applications to be "utilities". > > The apps in question are currently packaged by multiple distros today > as standalone packages. Today distros can decide whether they want > the "bloat" associated with large GUI applications just to get the > benefits of a couple of command line utilities. Bundling them > together makes that much harder (and would also result in a package > with lots of external dependencies on third party libraries). > > Adding them into v4l2-utils doesn't really solve the real problem - > that there are very few people willing to put in the effort to > extend/improve these applications (something which, as Douglas pointed > out, I'm trying to improve in the case of tvtime). For unmaintained applications the problem is that even those people that have patches for them have no easy way to get them applied, precisely because they are unmaintained. We as v4l-dvb developers don't have the time to make TV apps, but perhaps if we 'adopted' one unmaintained application and just update that whenever we make new features, then that would be very helpful I think. Or perhaps just provide a place for such applications where there is someone who can take community supplied patches and review and apply them. Such an application does not have to be in v4l2-utils, it can have its own tree. Anyway, regarding alevt: I believe that the consensus is that it should be moved to v4l2-utils? Or am I wrong? Regards, Hans -- Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG -- 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
