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

Uwe Bugla uwe.bugla at gmx.de
Sun Jul 22 14:41:52 CEST 2007


Am Sonntag, 22. Juli 2007 13:44:44 schrieb timecop:
> I propose we setup #linuxtv-without-jews on feenode and coordinate our
> efforts to take over those fools who run the real LinuxTV scam.
>
> -tc

Hello tc,
could you please stay off from here with such a no-brain antisemitistic verbal 
crap?

Thanks

Uwe

>
> On 7/22/07, Uwe Bugla <uwe.bugla at gmx.de> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-dvb mailing list
> > linux-dvb at linuxtv.org
> > http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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