[vdr] Re: VDR and 2.6.0-test1?

[Steffen Barszus <st_barszus@gmx.de>]

Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2003 23:32 schrieben Sie:
> Rene Bartsch wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > > Well as vdr relies anyway on DVB API 3 it would be usefull to add the
> > > > headers to the vdr package. This way I would not need to add DVB/
> > > > tree in parallel to vdr source. As there is no real need for the way
> > > > now as far as i have understood, it would make things cleaner IMHO.
> > > > This way f.e. building RPMs would be easier (a bit at least).
> > >
> > > I don't think it is a good idea if an application contains the header
> > > files of a driver or any other library module.
> >
> > I'm not talking of headers, etc. A program should include all the
> > necessary code itself to be compiled against an API. Any change of the
> > driver code could break compiling of the program. If no other way it
> > would be an alternative to compile against hernel-headers as they
> > shouldn't change much, but I don't like software with such a lot
> > dependencies. Have you never been driven crazy as you had to install 13
> > proggies and libraries to get a 50 kbyte code running?
> >
> > My suggestion is to move the necessary code of the drivers to compile
> > VDR into VDR and incorporate it in the next structural changes.
>
> I don't think this makes _any_ sense!!
> The driver is the driver is the driver!!
> VDR is _one_ application that uses the driver - IMO it makes absolutely no
> sense at all to include _anything_ from the driver into VDR's distribution
> archive!

aren't just the headers needed ? Anyway you wont do so ....

> Of course you can create your own VDR archive that does this - I for one
> won't make it that way.
>
> > > Having DVB in parallel to VDR is just a suggestion (it's the way I have
> > > it). You can simply change the line
> > >
> > > DVBDIR   = ../DVB
> > >
> > > in your Make.config file to change this.
> >
> > By the way - what about updating VDR and Makefiles to handle the path
> > for the plugin-libraries. VDR should look for plugins in the default
> > library-path of the distribution and Makefiles should install/remove
> > libraries into/from the default library-path of the distribution.
>
> I don't want to make VDR dependent on any special Linux distribution.
> If you want to make a distribution specific VDR archive (that may also
> contain parts of the driver, if you wish), feel free to do so.

That was not the point. The point was, to be able to define an own dir while 
compiling. Nearly all applications having libs in lib-dir, config in 
conf-dir, data in data-dir and so on. 
 The idea to leave the current win-like approach for a more standard one isn't 
that bad. And yes I know I can define all that by myself on startup ... (i 
have it currently that way)

Steffen


-- 
Info:
To unsubscribe send a mail to ecartis@linuxtv.org with "unsubscribe vdr" as subject.