Klaus Schmidinger <Klaus.Schmidinger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > i always wondered why dvb support was directly compiled in while > > other back and frontends were supposed to be plugins. this clearly > > leaves a sign that dvb is the "preferd" plattform. > > Well, it was the first one - long before there even was a plugin > interface. sure. but as soon as you introduced the plugin concept i, for one, would have moved the dvb code into plugins. they give perfect testcases for source and sink plugins. and why should i have dvb headers installed to compile vdr, if i don't have a dvb card? i think vdrs design is too thighly modeled after your personal usage cenario - it could be a lot more "generic". the main problem with vdr is maybe that it works damn well within its limited scope. we live with its shortcomings waiting for it to become whatever ones actual need is. if it was more buggy or long winded to use, most have moved on already. but it isn't. best regards ... clemens _______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
