On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Alex Lasnier <alex@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Since VDR needs to be patched for ATSC anyway, I'll consider adding > sub-channel support in the next ATSC patch. But my first impression is > that such a change will likely be very ugly and break many things... > > However, none of the North American satellite providers have channel > numbers lower than 50 (I think) so the easiest solution is to number > your ATSC channels from 1 to 49. Is it really that important that your > channel numbers match the broadcaster's? Why wouldn't you want your channel numbers to match that of your provider(s)? Isn't it a better idea to have proper support for this rather then forcing channels into certain # ranges, or anything other then what they're intended to be? What possible side-effects exist in relation to EPG data? Call me crazy, I just believe proper support for sub-channels, and multiple providers using the same channel numbers for that matter, should take priority over some hack that technically works. The use of regular integers for channel numbers has become outdated thus justifying a change to something more suitable. I don't see any good reason to think this is a bad idea, especially since the issue won't go away and only get bigger over time, no different then that of dvb-s2 and hdtv. _______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
