Thiemo wrote: >> 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. Ok, I try to sum it up: If there's a good reason not to shut down, then hitting power once just switches to non-interactive mode. Hitting power twice in a short time starts the usual confirm marathon, and you'll need at least "power, power, ok" before anything happens. Now what if nothing blocks shutdown? Going to non-interactive mode doesn't make sense, since VDR will start the 5-minute-shutdown then. So in that case VDR could power down on single power button. But is this intuitive? Hmmm. >> 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. In my opinion, disabling a timer *is* altering. I tend to agree that timers shouldn't be altered, especially since the external shutdown script may just ignore the shutdown, in which case the timers should keep running. Also, I wouldn't bring down VDR with Interrupted=1, thats the job of the external script too. But at the end, the shutdown script needs some advice when to start up again. It doesn't make sense to pass negative values, and it doesn't make sense to pass values in a few minutes, as shutdown and reboot takes more time. And SVDRP'ing for the next timer that is realistically rebootable in time is a too difficult task for an external script. So what now? Cheers, Udo
