Am Samstag, 9. Dezember 2006 17:48 schrieb Udo Richter: > Thiemo wrote: > > So here is my solution: > > - if a recording is running and User presses "Power" tell him the box > > will shutdown after the current recording > > - If he presses "Power" a second time, ask if he realy wants to do this > > (like before) *and* stop any running recordings (i reused the code from > > Udo which work very well, thanks) > > I agree that the shutdown-not-confirmed state should be more visible to > users by some message that VDR is just waiting for background tasks to > complete before shutdown. A solution I thought of was to put up a > message after not confirming shutdown that VDR will shut down as soon as > whatever is done - maybe even keeping that message on screen all the time. > > The idea of pressing power button twice is also nice, though it will > confuse scripts that send power key presses. No it won't. VDR still remembers the "shutdown-after-recording"-state with my changes. The only difference here is that the user is told whats going on. A script never knows if it has to confirm the kPower or not (except if you would parse the timers to see if one is running). So if a script wants to shutdown vdr regardless of its state (i.e. for some maintenance ;) ) then sending kPower via svdrp isn't the right action at all. (one should use "killall -1 vdr" or similar and prevent vdr from starting up again). > Plus, effectively, while > you currently confirm shutdown with "power, ok", you now confirm with > "power, power". And together with the other numerous reasons for not > shutting down, this gets confusing: Use power button to override running > timers, and use ok button to override timers in a few minutes? No, you still confirm with Ok, theres just one additional step before. I suggest you try it out - thats easier than describing it here. > > - if a timer is pending within MinEventTimeout ask if he really wants to > > do so but do *not* modify any timers or wakeup times. > > So you *do* want running timers to be disabled, but *not* want to ignore > timers in a few minutes? exactly. If you would alter a timer (or the wakeuptime whats the same in the end) you would have to give a clear warning "Your timers will be shifted by xx minutes. Are you sure". But as i wrote in the previous post, it's not a good idea to alter a timer at all. > > I think it's the task of whoever adopts vdr to a mainboard or box to > > program a valid wakeup time, not the vdr itself. > > Then we can also go back to what it was before, leave all timers alone > and report wakeup in -30 minutes to the shutdown script. In the end it > doesn't matter if any timers are running when VDR is killed. No, it's an improvement to what is was before. Users treat negative times as bugs. (And it *is* a bug to ask "recording in -x min" instead of "a recording is active") Tim
