[linux-dvb] [ANNOUNCE] DVB API improvements

Markus Rechberger mrechberger at gmail.com
Thu Sep 25 04:01:03 CEST 2008


On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:41 PM, VDR User <user.vdr at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> <mchehab at infradead.org> wrote:
>> The decision were already taken by the group.
>>
>> It should be noticed also that the public announcement took some time to
>> be ready, since we all carefully reviewed it to reflect the understanding
>> that the group had.
>>
>> Both API's work, and people needed to choose between one of the proposals.
>>
>> Each one there had enough time to read and understand each proposal, since
>> the patches were available more than one week before the meeting, and
>> everybody were aware that the decision are scheduled to happen during LPC.
>>
>> Each one voted based on their own technical analysis, on a meeting that
>> took about 2:30 hours, on the day after the presentations. People had
>> enough time there to discuss, explain their ideas with the help of a
>> whiteboard, decide and improve the proposal.
>>
>> S2API was choosen, since it was considered the better proposal for
>> everybody there. None of the presents voted for Multiproto.
>>
>> Now that the decision were already taken, it is not time anymore to argue
>> in favor to any other proposals. We need to move ahead and finally add
>> support for DVB-S2 and the remaining missing digital TV's at kernel.
>>
>> Thank you and everyone else involved on adding support for the missing
>> standards.
>>
>> Let's move to the next step: finally add API changes and drivers for
>> DVB-S2 and prepare support for the remaining missing standards.
>
> It's no secret to anyone that there has been foul play, and blatantly
> clear there is bias against Manu himself, and multiproto as a result,
> based on personal differences & past conflicts.  You can't possibly
> expect the dvb community to believe a fair & balanced meeting took
> place to discuss these proposals when half the people there already
> signed on for s2api, and the other half don't have the knowledge &
> experience with dvb to make well-informed decisions.  You can't
> possibly think people will believe any of you (who've openly admitted
> support for s2api) spent 2 seconds defending multiproto, or even
> assessing the proposal from an unbias technical standpoint.
>
> It's very convenient that you've completely ignored multiple requests
> for more in-depth details that actually prove your points have real
> technical merit and aren't just the result of some self-interest
> politics and b.s.  Yet, you had no problem writing paragraphs about
> how the decision has been made and everyone should just accept it.
> Sorry, people aren't going to just accept it because this whole thing
> has been tainted by misleading people, misrepresenting the truth, and
> sometimes flat out lying.
>
> Valuable members of the community have turned, and are turning away
> because of how poorly dvb has been maintained, and how self-serving
> some people act.  I'm thankful that more people are being exposed &
> becoming aware of what's been going on in hopes that at the very least
> some kind of steps will be taken to stop the misuse & abuse of power
> at the front of the dvb train.
>
> Again, if there is truth to your claims that s2api is the best
> technical solution, then convince us all by providing tangible proof
> rather then expecting everyone to take your word for it while ignoring
> our requests for such information.  You have an obligation to the
> community to justify your actions, and be held accountable for them.
>

There hasn't been much positive feedback here! How about let's talk to split the
v4l and dvb development in order to not give Mauro the full authority
over the whole
2 subsystems where he hardly anything contributed (to the second part).

Don't see this as a flamewar, Andrew Morton and a few others are
following that discussion now.

Mauro as for you try to justify your step technically, the only point
we've seen for now was from
Patrick Boettcher (which was a good one from his side) but also the
other involved people (within that
8 people group in Portland should point out their opinion and
technical objections/reasons now).

Officially it looks like you had 3 people supporting the Stevens
proposal and 5 people who didn't know about
the framework at all and explaining them that the DVB-S2 step is the
better one to go whereas you had
noone representing the multiproto path. Such a vote is highly doubtful then.

Hans Hverkuil:
I saw you in IRC that you support that proposal please also state out
your opinion and/or ask your questions
what/why things have been done like they are done in the multiproto
tree and why you don't support it.

It finally can really end up with a good solution either multiproto or
S2 but everyone should understand and not only
a few people.

Markus



More information about the linux-dvb mailing list