Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
Niklas Peinecke wrote:
Holger Waechtler wrote:
Niklas Peinecke wrote:
Hello all,
I keep reading on several lists and forums that there should be a
1.0.2 release including latest drivers for newer skystar2 cards and
all the other improvements and bugfixes. Instead of backporting the
whole stuff from dvb-kernel we should derive this release directly
from dvb-kernel. But how? IMHO we have two options:
1) Leave the structure of DVB as is and copy all the program files
from dvb-kernel. Don't know, if this would work, probably fails
because of added files?
2) Take the structure from dvb-kernel and modify the top-level
Makefile to take "build-2.4" as its default target.
I'd vote for (2) and would suggest to provide an additional dvb-apps
package. I'd call the release 1.1.
Would you like to write the toplevel Makefile and also add a
DVB/-alike 'make release' target?
I can do that (time window: approx. 1 week ;) ).
What is the "release" target supposed to do (can I just copy'n'paste
it from DVB)?
Are there any other targets needed?
Please don't do that.
I've already created a new dvb-apps CVS tree into which I want to
move the the userspace stuff from the old "DVB" tree.
?
The goal is to separate drivers and libs/applications into
two separate packages, mainly because the DVB drivers are
already shipped with 2.6.x so you don't need to download them
again.
I also have no plans of doing a DVB-1.0.2 release, once
dvb-apps is populated I would rather release both a dvb-kernel
and dvb-apps package and officially deprecate the old DVB tree.
hmmm - wasn't the plan to freeze the dvb-kernel code, package it with a
easy-to-use toplevel Makefile and then release it for standalone builds?
driver and apps should get distributed seperatly, but that's exactly
what I suggested above...
The release target we've been talking about is a Makefile rule that
removes CVS tags from the tree and creates a clean tarball, this can
surely copied from the DVB/-Makefile, not? Don't know off-hand what
minor adjustments would need to get done to get it working, though...
I agree with Holger. Of course it's better to have a release suitable
for 2.6, but it will take some more time until 2.6 kernels are really
common: Most people have working vdr-boxes based on existing 2.4 kernels
and they just like to use some e-bayed cheap skystar2 as a third card.
I'm sure they won't like to upgrade their kernels for that. It will also
take some time until 2.6 is established in dists like LinVDR, thus we
need a release as a bridge until then.