[linux-dvb] extra switch for tzap, czap and szap - new tarball and Debian package

Uwe Bugla uwe.bugla at gmx.de
Sun Jul 22 13:38:01 CEST 2007


Am Sonntag, 22. Juli 2007 12:41:56 schrieb Johannes Stezenbach:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2007, Uwe Bugla wrote:
> > As announced I've built a revised tarball plus a Debian package of the
> > current dvb-apps repository, implying your patchset (i. e. human readable
> > characters as a switch for szap, tzap and czap.
> >
> > Unfortunately both packages were rejected without giving reason by the
> > list moderator of linux-dvb at linuxtv.org.
>
> If you look at the reject messages, they should say:
>
>   Reason:  Message body is too big: 404226 bytes with a limit of 60 KB
> and
>   Reason:  Message body is too big: 517891 bytes with a limit of 60 KB
>
> The limit is there to protect people who don't have broadband
> connectivity, and to protect the list server (with ~2000 list
> subscribers, these two mails would have caused ~1.8 GByte of traffic).
>
>
> Johannes
>

Sounds logical. But the main reason you unfortunately forgot to mention:

The limit is there to protect the "highly motivated illustrious" linuxtv 
gatekeepers from doing additional good work in order to share good efforts 
all around the world.

I still got my own experiences and views on the difference between what real 
sophisticated maintainership means in practice @linuxtv.org in comparison to 
the rest of the world-wide linux community. In fact there is a big 
difference.

For example, if I read comments like "you should first ask whether someone 
intends to pick it up (by Christoph Pfister in this specific example) the 
knife in my pocket opens.
A real sophisticated maintainer picks up such efforts like P. van Gaans patch 
set and merges them without making any noise.

Above that, the filter timeout problem in connection with "scan" still remains
unsolved (wasn't it you, Johannes, who once wrote the scan utility?).

Why is the scan result still such a drag? Why are the scan results so 
unreliable? Why are there channels missing in the final result?
Is it a driver issue or an application issue?
And who can help? Who has got the clue to fix that?
And why does this problem not appear within kaffeine's channel scan?

I'm not expecting any answer or fix for that problem - I can help myself.
But I would like to know whether I am the only one to have that problem with 
the scan utility.

Uwe

> _______________________________________________
> linux-dvb mailing list
> linux-dvb at linuxtv.org
> http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb





More information about the linux-dvb mailing list