There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the "multiproto" driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM).
In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would make sense to revoke the switch to the "multiproto" driver and go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch now.
If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then. I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR for HDTV before looking into these patches.
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Klaus
Hi Klaus, my opinion: the next stable version should contain DVB-S2/H.264 (HDTV) support. So there is no use for a stable version based on 1.5.14.
Kind regards Martin
-----Original Message----- From: vdr-bounces@linuxtv.org [mailto:vdr-bounces@linuxtv.org] On Behalf Of Klaus Schmidinger Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:17 AM To: vdr@linuxtv.org Subject: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the "multiproto" driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM).
In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would make sense to revoke the switch to the "multiproto" driver and go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch now.
If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then. I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR for HDTV before looking into these patches.
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Klaus
vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Martin Binder (AON) wrote:
Hi Klaus, my opinion: the next stable version should contain DVB-S2/H.264 (HDTV) support. So there is no use for a stable version based on 1.5.14.
Kind regards Martin
Basically, I agree. But since there are no DVB-S2 drivers in the official kernel I think Klaus is right in making a 1.6 now before jumping on the multiproto bandwagon. DVB-S2 and h.264 will be quite experimental for a while so why not leave that for 1.7. In short, I vote yes. And I'm really glad you have committed to implementing DVB-S2/h.264 in VDR! /Magnus H
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
No. The current features in 1.5.14 are still missing some essential key features that should be included in the next stable version: DVB subtitling (still missing component type support for the hard of hearing), EBU subtitling, native channels.conf support for pseudo DVB devices (pvrinput, iptv, analogtv), and multiple channel lists.
BR, -- rofa
On 02/03/08 11:43, Rolf Ahrenberg wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
No. The current features in 1.5.14 are still missing some essential key features that should be included in the next stable version: DVB subtitling (still missing component type support for the hard of hearing), EBU subtitling, native channels.conf support for pseudo DVB devices (pvrinput, iptv, analogtv), and multiple channel lists.
I am not going to deal with these things before DVB-S2/H.264, anyway.
Klaus
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 02/03/08 11:43, Rolf Ahrenberg wrote:
No. The current features in 1.5.14 are still missing some essential key features that should be included in the next stable version: DVB subtitling (still missing component type support for the hard of hearing), EBU subtitling, native channels.conf support for pseudo DVB devices (pvrinput, iptv, analogtv), and multiple channel lists.
I am not going to deal with these things before DVB-S2/H.264, anyway.
The compile time selection between multiproto and normal drivers (as done in Udo's dvb-api-emulate patch) could be used from now on. I don't see any reason to freeze the development at this phase.
The completition of H.264 support would be nice to have in next stable version. The H.264 support isn't related only to DVB-S2 as it's used already in many DVB-C and DVB-T networks nowadays.
Also, I'd vote for making the recording format selectable, PES or TS, as it would make the postprocessing of VDR files with existing Windows/Linux tools a lot easier.
-- rofa
On 02/03/08 12:17, Rolf Ahrenberg wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 02/03/08 11:43, Rolf Ahrenberg wrote:
No. The current features in 1.5.14 are still missing some essential key features that should be included in the next stable version: DVB subtitling (still missing component type support for the hard of hearing), EBU subtitling, native channels.conf support for pseudo DVB devices (pvrinput, iptv, analogtv), and multiple channel lists.
I am not going to deal with these things before DVB-S2/H.264, anyway.
The compile time selection between multiproto and normal drivers (as done in Udo's dvb-api-emulate patch) could be used from now on. I don't see any reason to freeze the development at this phase.
The completition of H.264 support would be nice to have in next stable version. The H.264 support isn't related only to DVB-S2 as it's used already in many DVB-C and DVB-T networks nowadays.
Just for the record: this would most likely pospone the next stable version for quite a while.
Also, I'd vote for making the recording format selectable, PES or TS, as it would make the postprocessing of VDR files with existing Windows/Linux tools a lot easier.
It is either going to remain PES, or switch entirely to TS. Supporting both formats for recording is not what I intend to do. Of course, replaying PES recordings will still be possible.
Klaus
Hello,
I vote with NO. For me there are important features missing and I fear a slowdown of developement pace once vdr-1.6.0 is out. Also the current situation with vdr-1.5.14 puts some kind of pressure on the driver devs to get a working solution into the kernel.
S.
On Feb 3, 2008 3:17 AM, Rolf Ahrenberg rahrenbe@cc.hut.fi wrote:
The compile time selection between multiproto and normal drivers (as done in Udo's dvb-api-emulate patch) could be used from now on. I don't see any reason to freeze the development at this phase.
The completition of H.264 support would be nice to have in next stable version. The H.264 support isn't related only to DVB-S2 as it's used already in many DVB-C and DVB-T networks nowadays.
Also, I'd vote for making the recording format selectable, PES or TS, as it would make the postprocessing of VDR files with existing Windows/Linux tools a lot easier.
I tend to agree with this. I don't think there should be any rush to release another stable version. I personally would love to see full DVB-S2 and H264 support in the next stable. The switch to multiproto makes sense as well since it should be adopted into the next kernel by the next release or two (leaving time to finish up VDR). Even the kernel maintainer wants multiproto in, and DVB-S2 users certainly do. I don't think theres any harm is having package maintainers wait a little longer. If people are dying that bad to use things like subtitles then there's nothing stopping them from using 1.5.14 for example.
I am also in strong favor of using TS for the recording format as I've heard countless complaints by countless numbers of users who have trouble working with the current PES format. The ability to easily manipulate vdr recordings in other software has been a long-standing desire of many many people.
Overall I'm not in favor of freezing the current development tree. There seems to be good momentum and no solid reasons to interrupt that. I don't think it's a horrible thing that package maintainers would have to wait a while longer, they've certainly waited longer in the past.. Especially if it means the next stable release has all kinds of new goodies wrapped inside!
I demand that Rolf Ahrenberg may or may not have written...
[snip]
The completition of H.264 support would be nice to have in next stable version. The H.264 support isn't related only to DVB-S2 as it's used already in many DVB-C and DVB-T networks nowadays.
Then there's DVB-T2, which we should have late next year; but I expect that that'll require multiproto support (and new cards!) anyway...
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 02/03/08 11:43, Rolf Ahrenberg wrote:
No. The current features in 1.5.14 are still missing some essential key features that should be included in the next stable version: DVB subtitling (still missing component type support for the hard of hearing), EBU subtitling, native channels.conf support for pseudo DVB devices (pvrinput, iptv, analogtv), and multiple channel lists.
I am not going to deal with these things before DVB-S2/H.264, anyway.
Klaus
I've been using VDR for about a year and a half now and it's great. But with all due respect, I think you're doing this the wrong way around. At least here in Finland, decent DVB subtitles support is pretty much the only thing VDR needs to be usable out-of-the-box with the free channels we have.
In my opinion DVB-S2/H.264 are "nice to have" extra features, but working DVB subtitling support is a "must have" feature for PVR software like VDR, because almost everyone needs DVB subtitles around here, but not that many watch HDTV channels yet.
On 02/03/08 12:27, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 02/03/08 11:43, Rolf Ahrenberg wrote:
No. The current features in 1.5.14 are still missing some essential key features that should be included in the next stable version: DVB subtitling (still missing component type support for the hard of hearing), EBU subtitling, native channels.conf support for pseudo DVB devices (pvrinput, iptv, analogtv), and multiple channel lists.
I am not going to deal with these things before DVB-S2/H.264, anyway.
Klaus
I've been using VDR for about a year and a half now and it's great. But with all due respect, I think you're doing this the wrong way around. At least here in Finland, decent DVB subtitles support is pretty much the only thing VDR needs to be usable out-of-the-box with the free channels we have.
In my opinion DVB-S2/H.264 are "nice to have" extra features, but working DVB subtitling support is a "must have" feature for PVR software like VDR, because almost everyone needs DVB subtitles around here, but not that many watch HDTV channels yet.
Which version of VDR are you using?
The current developer version does have DVB subtitling support.
Klaus
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 02/03/08 12:27, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 02/03/08 11:43, Rolf Ahrenberg wrote:
No. The current features in 1.5.14 are still missing some essential key features that should be included in the next stable version: DVB subtitling (still missing component type support for the hard of hearing), EBU subtitling, native channels.conf support for pseudo DVB devices (pvrinput, iptv, analogtv), and multiple channel lists.
I am not going to deal with these things before DVB-S2/H.264, anyway.
Klaus
I've been using VDR for about a year and a half now and it's great. But with all due respect, I think you're doing this the wrong way around. At least here in Finland, decent DVB subtitles support is pretty much the only thing VDR needs to be usable out-of-the-box with the free channels we have.
In my opinion DVB-S2/H.264 are "nice to have" extra features, but working DVB subtitling support is a "must have" feature for PVR software like VDR, because almost everyone needs DVB subtitles around here, but not that many watch HDTV channels yet.
Which version of VDR are you using?
The current developer version does have DVB subtitling support.
Klaus
I have to admit I'm still using 1.4.7 with the subtitles plugin. But I was referring to the issues with DVB and EBU subtitling that Rolf pointed out in his mail. If there are problems and/or missing features, I wish those could be fixed before doing a stable release. I'll test 1.5 soon myself, so I'll see what the situation actually is.
Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
In my opinion DVB-S2/H.264 are "nice to have" extra features, but working DVB subtitling support is a "must have" feature for PVR software like VDR, because almost everyone needs DVB subtitles around here, but not that many watch HDTV channels yet.
But the DVB subtitling is working, isn't it? At least i have not had any problems with the incorporated solution for a long time. But I still feel that the subtitling as such is not ready, because the functionality of ttxtsubs plugin is not yet in the core. Most of the subscription channels that I have/have had use only ttxtsubs (e.g. Canal+) and therefore I am forced to still patch the core VDR to get ttxtsubs working. In an ideal state no patches would be required :)
On the other hand.. h.264 is AFAIK coming popular with SDTV in DVB-T also (Estonia, Norway, Slovenia) and therefore I feel that it should be prioritized over any new subtitling solutions and once there is support for h.264, a new stable release should be made.
-Petri
On 02/03/08 12:48, Petri Helin wrote:
Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
In my opinion DVB-S2/H.264 are "nice to have" extra features, but working DVB subtitling support is a "must have" feature for PVR software like VDR, because almost everyone needs DVB subtitles around here, but not that many watch HDTV channels yet.
But the DVB subtitling is working, isn't it? At least i have not had any problems with the incorporated solution for a long time. But I still feel that the subtitling as such is not ready, because the functionality of ttxtsubs plugin is not yet in the core. Most of the subscription channels that I have/have had use only ttxtsubs (e.g. Canal+) and therefore I am forced to still patch the core VDR to get ttxtsubs working. In an ideal state no patches would be required :)
On the other hand.. h.264 is AFAIK coming popular with SDTV in DVB-T also (Estonia, Norway, Slovenia) and therefore I feel that it should be prioritized over any new subtitling solutions and once there is support for h.264, a new stable release should be made.
Is this a "Yes" or "No" vote?
Klaus
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 02/03/08 12:48, Petri Helin wrote:
once there is support for h.264, a new stable release should be made.
Is this a "Yes" or "No" vote?
Klaus
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
If the h.264 support is left out, it's a no.
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Petri Helin wrote:
But the DVB subtitling is working, isn't it? At least i have not had any
Only partially. The current implementation doesn't differentiate normal and hard of hearing stream components (Table 26 in ETSI EN 300 468). I was going to make a patch for this, but the ttxtsubs support would require modification to the same piece of code and Klaus propably want to design the solution by himself.
working. In an ideal state no patches would be required :)
I agree. No plugins should require any patches.
BR, -- rofa
Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
I've been using VDR for about a year and a half now and it's great. But with all due respect, I think you're doing this the wrong way around. At least here in Finland, decent DVB subtitles support is pretty much the only thing VDR needs to be usable out-of-the-box with the free channels we have.
If ttxtsubs are that important and require patches to vdr, why don't we see them posted and discussed on the list?
cu Ludwig
On 02/04/08 09:46, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
I've been using VDR for about a year and a half now and it's great. But with all due respect, I think you're doing this the wrong way around. At least here in Finland, decent DVB subtitles support is pretty much the only thing VDR needs to be usable out-of-the-box with the free channels we have.
If ttxtsubs are that important and require patches to vdr, why don't we see them posted and discussed on the list?
I believe there is a patch for that, but that's not the way I want to implement it. I want to convert the incoming teletext subtitles to DVB subtitles, so that on the recording/display side we only need to deal with one type of subtitles. (Besides, I guess some day teletext subtitles will become obsolete, anyway).
Klaus
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 02/04/08 09:46, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
I've been using VDR for about a year and a half now and it's great. But with all due respect, I think you're doing this the wrong way around. At least here in Finland, decent DVB subtitles support is pretty much the only thing VDR needs to be usable out-of-the-box with the free channels we have.
If ttxtsubs are that important and require patches to vdr, why don't we see them posted and discussed on the list?
I believe there is a patch for that, but that's not the way I want to implement it. I want to convert the incoming teletext subtitles to DVB subtitles, so that on the recording/display side we only need to deal with one type of subtitles. (Besides, I guess some day teletext subtitles will become obsolete, anyway).
Well, that's exactly the kind of feedback I'd expect if someone had actually posted the patch. Anyone out there who wants to step up now and implement it that way? :-)
cu Ludwig
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
I believe there is a patch for that, but that's not the way I want to implement it.
Yes we have this patch in the (unofficial!) Debian package to support the ttxtsubs plug-in. The Patch is maintained by Rolf Ahrenberg.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~rahrenbe/vdr/patches/
I want to convert the incoming teletext subtitles to DVB subtitles, so that on the recording/display side we only need to deal with one type of subtitles.
I think this shouldn't be too hard to do. Would you accept come contributed coded that does this? Teletext subtitles are just in general kinda ugly, because somtetimes even the announcement of the teletext page for the subtitles isn't correctly implemented on the provide side. This means, you need some way to configure the teletext subtitles page per channel.
(Besides, I guess some day teletext subtitles will become obsolete, anyway).
I'm not sure about that. At least the ZDF here in Germany uses DVB subtitles now, but I don't think the other broadcasters will follow very fast.
Tobias
On 02/04/08 10:15, Tobi wrote:
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
I believe there is a patch for that, but that's not the way I want to implement it.
Yes we have this patch in the (unofficial!) Debian package to support the ttxtsubs plug-in. The Patch is maintained by Rolf Ahrenberg.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~rahrenbe/vdr/patches/
I want to convert the incoming teletext subtitles to DVB subtitles, so that on the recording/display side we only need to deal with one type of subtitles.
I think this shouldn't be too hard to do. Would you accept come contributed coded that does this?
All I can say is that I will look at such a patch (as time permits) and either use it directly, in a modified way, or not at all ;-).
Teletext subtitles are just in general kinda ugly, because somtetimes even the announcement of the teletext page for the subtitles isn't correctly implemented on the provide side. This means, you need some way to configure the teletext subtitles page per channel.
This is one point that I really don't like about this. If there is an official way how the teletext subtitle page is announced, the broadcasters should use it - and not force the viewers to use ugly workarounds.
(Besides, I guess some day teletext subtitles will become obsolete, anyway).
I'm not sure about that. At least the ZDF here in Germany uses DVB subtitles now, but I don't think the other broadcasters will follow very fast.
I believe the ARD is also looking into this.
At any rate, using DVB subtitles would be the optimal solution.
Klaus
I'm not sure about that. At least the ZDF here in Germany uses DVB subtitles now, but I don't think the other broadcasters will follow very fast.
I believe the ARD is also looking into this.
At any rate, using DVB subtitles would be the optimal solution.
Klaus
You're absolutely right. But: UPC Direct removed couple of days ago the Czech and Hungarian DVB subtitle from BBC Prime (on S19.2E) and now it only has teletext subtitles :( This means that after about a year I have to install teletext subtitle plugin again.
Istvan
On 02/04/08 18:11, Füley István wrote:
I'm not sure about that. At least the ZDF here in Germany uses DVB subtitles now, but I don't think the other broadcasters will follow very fast.
I believe the ARD is also looking into this.
At any rate, using DVB subtitles would be the optimal solution.
Klaus
You're absolutely right. But: UPC Direct removed couple of days ago the Czech and Hungarian DVB subtitle from BBC Prime (on S19.2E) and now it only has teletext subtitles :( This means that after about a year I have to install teletext subtitle plugin again.
Did they give any reason why they did this?
Klaus
You're absolutely right. But: UPC Direct removed couple of days ago the Czech and Hungarian DVB subtitle from BBC Prime (on S19.2E) and now it only has teletext subtitles :( This means that after about a year I have to install teletext subtitle plugin again.
Did they give any reason why they did this?
Klaus
I'm waiting their answer from Saturday...
I guess it will be something like "BBC did this" or some other stupid answer...
(On S13E BBC Prime's DVB subtitles are working fine.)
Rolf Ahrenberg wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
No. The current features in 1.5.14 are still missing some essential key features that should be included in the next stable version: DVB subtitling (still missing component type support for the hard of hearing), EBU subtitling, native channels.conf support for pseudo DVB devices (pvrinput, iptv, analogtv), and multiple channel lists.
For the same reasons, it's a No from me. If EBU subtitles are implemented in the vdr core without any need of plugins or patches, it's a Yes.
-Mikko
On Sunday 03 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
I have no use for HDTV support (the only HDTV available in the UK at present is on the closed $KY system), so freezing the current development version into a stable release sounds a good idea.
The distributions which include vdr would probably appreciate a release which worked with their existing kernels.
Maybe we'll all meet again at version 2.0...
Yes or No?
Yes.
On 03.02.2008 11:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Is the CAM Handling regarding multiple parallel recodings (on the same channel) fixed?
I had to revert to 1.2 after the 1.4 was such a disaster in that regard.
If yes then: yes. If no then: I don't care. Can't use it anyway.
Bis denn
On 02/03/08 12:06, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On 03.02.2008 11:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Is the CAM Handling regarding multiple parallel recodings (on the same channel) fixed?
Have you tried version 1.5 yet?
It can do multiple parallel recordings with the same CAM (if the CAM supports this).
Klaus
On 03.02.2008 12:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 02/03/08 12:06, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On 03.02.2008 11:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Is the CAM Handling regarding multiple parallel recodings (on the same channel) fixed?
Have you tried version 1.5 yet?
No
And as the 1.2-version works great i have no real pressure for anything newer. (*)
The only exception is channel-scanning, but for that i have a 1.4-version in a parallel-setup, that i can run for a bit of time when there are no recordings pending.
I will try a 1.6-version after a little time has passed, but it heavily depends on me having to update the Linux-install to a recent state or not.
It can do multiple parallel recordings with the same CAM (if the CAM supports this).
That's not a case i'm very much interested in, at least as long as i don't know it is actually usable in my case. But even then, Murphy will prevent it from being useful 90% of the time it could have been useful. So it's still nothing i would count on.
*: Taking aside that i can't update my DVB-computers linux-installation to anything recent as the 1.2-version of VDR can't cope with a recent glibc (threading). But that's not a real problem as i don't use my DVB-computers for anything else. :-)
Bis denn
On 02/03/08 12:48, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On 03.02.2008 12:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 02/03/08 12:06, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On 03.02.2008 11:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Is the CAM Handling regarding multiple parallel recodings (on the same channel) fixed?
Have you tried version 1.5 yet?
No
And as the 1.2-version works great i have no real pressure for anything newer. (*)
The only exception is channel-scanning, but for that i have a 1.4-version in a parallel-setup, that i can run for a bit of time when there are no recordings pending.
I will try a 1.6-version after a little time has passed, but it heavily depends on me having to update the Linux-install to a recent state or not.
It can do multiple parallel recordings with the same CAM (if the CAM supports this).
That's not a case i'm very much interested in, at least as long as i don't know it is actually usable in my case. But even then, Murphy will prevent it from being useful 90% of the time it could have been useful. So it's still nothing i would count on.
Sorry, I must have read your text too fast.
AFAICS doing several overlapping recordings on the same encrypted channel should work without problems.
Klaus
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 02/03/08 12:06, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
Is the CAM Handling regarding multiple parallel recodings (on the same channel) fixed?
Have you tried version 1.5 yet?
It can do multiple parallel recordings with the same CAM (if the CAM supports this).
I still have problem with it. Recording on crypted channel is not possible when watching FTA DVB-C on the same frequency. Same situation works fine on vdr-1.4.x environment.
Regards, Arthur
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 09:06:13PM +0200, Arthur Konovalov wrote:
Have you tried version 1.5 yet?
It can do multiple parallel recordings with the same CAM (if the CAM supports this).
I still have problem with it. Recording on crypted channel is not possible when watching FTA DVB-C on the same frequency. Same situation works fine on vdr-1.4.x environment.
I agree, this was main reason to go back to 1.4.x for me, because it was impossible to watch/record FTA channels while recording on encrypted channel.
Klaus Schmidinger Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de wrote:
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
1.5 already introduced many new features as freetype, the new i18n, subtitles, ... just to name some. h264 has not seen that broad of an adoption to be a must have for the next stable release either. and the switch to the new kernel API will make things even more troublesome for packagers who want to ship the latest stable vdr release. IMHO
Yes or No?
yes.
c.k.
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes, I think it would be a good idea to have a stable and up-to-date VDR version in the main distros based on the kernel drivers.
OT: Klaus, can you tell us anything about future H.264 support? DVB-S2 & H.264 sounds HDTV, and this means that we'll have an X-based output instead of FF-card's TV out?
Istvan
On 02/03/08 12:40, Füley István wrote:
... OT: Klaus, can you tell us anything about future H.264 support? DVB-S2 & H.264 sounds HDTV, and this means that we'll have an X-based output instead of FF-card's TV out?
VDR will use whatever output device it finds. For H.264 it will have to be one that can handle this format. Whether this is a hardware or software device is none of VDR's concern. The current FF-DVB cards can't handle H.264.
Klaus
Hi,
I am against a stable version at this time. Those who wants to use latest vdr can use Udo's wrapper patch (Thanks for this)? The distributors can use this patch too so it is no need for a stable version at this time!
Best regards, Halim
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
I would vote for a stable release now, cause some time has passed since the latest stable was released. Some ppl might get the impression that VDR is dead, cause they don't dare to use the dev-version. The latest stable (1.4.7) was released in may 2007..
I think that the current version could be good to freeze now, and then continue with new stuff.
René
-=-=- ... Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
Hello,
in the Linux world, the first stable aren't necessary really stable, it just mean feature freeze.
From my point of view, the inclusion of DVB-S2 and H.264 together with
multiproto is a must have before a feature freeze. I feel we are really near of that point, I wish 1.6 could include those.
Off course, only Klaus could tell how near we are...
Maybe subtitles (as long as they could be disabled as I don't have to see them...) ?
That way multiproto would come really quickly into the kernel and we'll have a DVB-S2/H.264's VDR really out of the box :-)
On 02/03/08 13:43, Gregoire Favre wrote:
Hello,
in the Linux world, the first stable aren't necessary really stable, it just mean feature freeze.
From my point of view, the inclusion of DVB-S2 and H.264 together with
multiproto is a must have before a feature freeze. I feel we are really near of that point, I wish 1.6 could include those.
There is still a long way to go before H.264 support is in there. The question whether PES or TS will be the future recording format is still open.
Off course, only Klaus could tell how near we are...
Maybe subtitles (as long as they could be disabled as I don't have to see them...) ?
That way multiproto would come really quickly into the kernel and we'll have a DVB-S2/H.264's VDR really out of the box :-)
So I assume your vote is "No".
Klaus
Hi Klaus,
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
With H264 support, because some DVB-T channels (at least here in France) are starting to carry H264-channels, afaiu unencrypted.
With Multiproto support (DVB-S2), but only if VDR is able to switch to the current DVB-API provided by standard kernels at compile time. I guess Multiproto will not be there before 2.6.26 or even later. There is a bunch of drivers currently not working with Multiproto.
Thanks, Patrick
On 02/03/08 13:26, Patrick Boettcher wrote:
Hi Klaus,
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
With H264 support, because some DVB-T channels (at least here in France) are starting to carry H264-channels, afaiu unencrypted.
With Multiproto support (DVB-S2), but only if VDR is able to switch to the current DVB-API provided by standard kernels at compile time. I guess Multiproto will not be there before 2.6.26 or even later. There is a bunch of drivers currently not working with Multiproto.
There can only be "Yes" or "No" answers ;-)
Klaus
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 02/03/08 13:26, Patrick Boettcher wrote:
Hi Klaus,
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
With H264 support, because some DVB-T channels (at least here in France) are starting to carry H264-channels, afaiu unencrypted.
With Multiproto support (DVB-S2), but only if VDR is able to switch to the current DVB-API provided by standard kernels at compile time. I guess Multiproto will not be there before 2.6.26 or even later. There is a bunch of drivers currently not working with Multiproto.
There can only be "Yes" or "No" answers ;-)
There can be only yes or no to a "yes-or-no question". The latter criteria does not apply for yours.
Maybe shorter: yes, without DVB-S2 support, with H264.
Patrick.
On 02/03/08 13:39, Patrick Boettcher wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
On 02/03/08 13:26, Patrick Boettcher wrote:
Hi Klaus,
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
With H264 support, because some DVB-T channels (at least here in France) are starting to carry H264-channels, afaiu unencrypted.
With Multiproto support (DVB-S2), but only if VDR is able to switch to the current DVB-API provided by standard kernels at compile time. I guess Multiproto will not be there before 2.6.26 or even later. There is a bunch of drivers currently not working with Multiproto.
There can only be "Yes" or "No" answers ;-)
There can be only yes or no to a "yes-or-no question". The latter criteria does not apply for yours.
Maybe shorter: yes, without DVB-S2 support, with H264.
Well, basically the question was "Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2". Maybe I shouldn't have added the "or even H.264 support" part.
That said, I count your vote as a "No".
Klaus
Hi Patrick,
Patrick Boettcher wrote:
Hi Klaus,
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
With H264 support, because some DVB-T channels (at least here in France) are starting to carry H264-channels, afaiu unencrypted.
With Multiproto support (DVB-S2), but only if VDR is able to switch to the current DVB-API provided by standard kernels at compile time. I guess Multiproto will not be there before 2.6.26 or even later. There is a bunch of drivers currently not working with Multiproto.
Something that was broken with my changes, or was it the merge ? Anything that you would like to point me to ?
(ISP is still not back in shape, Internet access is currently in a pathetic state)
Regards, Manu
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the "multiproto" driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM).
In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would make sense to revoke the switch to the "multiproto" driver and go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch now.
If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then. I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR for HDTV before looking into these patches.
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Klaus
vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Hi!
I agree with Petri and Rolf about ttxtsubs plugin.It is not yet in the core and need patches to work and most of the channels in Sweden uses ttxtsubs both DVB-S and DVB-T. I use osdteletext on daily basis to watch football results and other stuff so even that part can be better with truetype fonts. In a Swedish forum (www.vdr.nu) the most active users are testing DVB-S2 with HVR-4000 card but they are testing Mythtv too. Too keep users instead of loosing users I wote for No.
/Magnus
On Sunday 03 February 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Klaus
Hi Klaus, I vote for DVB-S2/H.264 (HDTV) support. But if it is a problem with some distros could it be there time-compile switch to choose which drivers to use?
I thing it would be disadvantage to leave at whole such a well prepared part of vdr.
Kind regards
Ales
On 02/03/08 13:36, Ales Jurik wrote:
On Sunday 03 February 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Klaus
Hi Klaus, I vote for DVB-S2/H.264 (HDTV) support. But if it is a problem with some distros could it be there time-compile switch to choose which drivers to use?
The developer version will only support one driver API officially, and that's the "multiproto" API.
I thing it would be disadvantage to leave at whole such a well prepared part of vdr.
It wouldn't be left out of the developer version (which would then be numbered 1.7.x).
The question was whether there is enough demand for a stable version *now*, based on what is in version 1.5.14, but without the switch to DVB-S2 (and thus the "multiproto" driver).
So far there have been 19 votes here on the list, 11 No and 8 Yes.
I have asked the same question over on vdrportal.de, and there the situation looks a lot different: 90 votes, 70 Yes, 20 No.
For the final result all votes given here on the ML and on vdrportal.de will be added up.
Klaus
For the final result all votes given here on the ML and on vdrportal.de will be added up.
Klaus
Shall it definitely be 1.6.0? Can't the 1.5.x improvements (subtitle support, utf, etc) be backported to 1.4 branch and call it 1.4.8?
On 02/03/08 14:18, Füley István wrote:
For the final result all votes given here on the ML and on vdrportal.de will be added up.
Klaus
Shall it definitely be 1.6.0? Can't the 1.5.x improvements (subtitle support, utf, etc) be backported to 1.4 branch and call it 1.4.8?
Apart from a lot of work and a mere play with numbers, I don't see any advantage in that.
1.4 is *stable*, so there can't be any interface changes - which there are quite a few of in the 1.5.x line.
Klaus
No! Let's not lose momentum on VDR moving forward. I am intrigued as to whether this move towards TS will improve performance for my H264 channels.
BTW, vompserver (CVS) / epgsearch etc all work with latest VDR and multiproto. I use it here.
On Feb 3, 2008 1:25 PM, Klaus Schmidinger Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de wrote:
On 02/03/08 13:36, Ales Jurik wrote:
On Sunday 03 February 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Klaus
Hi Klaus, I vote for DVB-S2/H.264 (HDTV) support. But if it is a problem with some distros could it be there time-compile switch to choose which drivers to use?
The developer version will only support one driver API officially, and that's the "multiproto" API.
I thing it would be disadvantage to leave at whole such a well prepared part of vdr.
It wouldn't be left out of the developer version (which would then be numbered 1.7.x).
The question was whether there is enough demand for a stable version *now*, based on what is in version 1.5.14, but without the switch to DVB-S2 (and thus the "multiproto" driver).
So far there have been 19 votes here on the list, 11 No and 8 Yes.
I have asked the same question over on vdrportal.de, and there the situation looks a lot different: 90 votes, 70 Yes, 20 No.
For the final result all votes given here on the ML and on vdrportal.de will be added up.
Klaus
vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the "multiproto" driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM).
I favor TS due to the greater support by other applications.
[...]
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
No, mostly due to the missing teletext subtitling support.
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
My answer is a clear and determined 'Maybe'. ;)
A new stable release would bring lots of useful features to the end user that is still sitting on 1.4.7, so this is surely worth a thought, maybe with a few smaller additions from the todo list. (Not that the 'developer' builds are anywhere near to being 'unstable'.)
However, with some working fallback for multiproto compatibility, I don't see a reason why multiproto support should be dropped from a new stable release. Depending on how much needs to change for full h264 support, it might be better to spare that for the 1.7 cycle, but optional multiproto API support should be possible for an 1.6 stable.
So my vote is: Yes, but based on the full 1.5.14 including multiproto and some fallback concept.
Cheers,
Udo
On 02/03/08 14:08, Udo Richter wrote:
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
My answer is a clear and determined 'Maybe'. ;)
A new stable release would bring lots of useful features to the end user that is still sitting on 1.4.7, so this is surely worth a thought, maybe with a few smaller additions from the todo list. (Not that the 'developer' builds are anywhere near to being 'unstable'.)
However, with some working fallback for multiproto compatibility, I don't see a reason why multiproto support should be dropped from a new stable release. Depending on how much needs to change for full h264 support, it might be better to spare that for the 1.7 cycle, but optional multiproto API support should be possible for an 1.6 stable.
So my vote is: Yes, but based on the full 1.5.14 including multiproto and some fallback concept.
So according to the original question your vote counts as "No" then.
Klaus
Yes
On Feb 3, 2008 10:17 AM, Klaus Schmidinger Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de wrote:
There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the "multiproto" driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM).
In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would make sense to revoke the switch to the "multiproto" driver and go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch now.
If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then. I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR for HDTV before looking into these patches.
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Klaus
vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:17:05AM +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
NO
You would just shoot yourself in the leg ;O I'm sure, that there would be too much "problems" with the new features of the 1.5 branch and the mailing list would be full of guestions ;O That would perhaps have an influence of developing the H.264/HDTV brach.
What I really would like to see is 1.5.x with built-in support for (in this order): H.264 ttxtsubs TS recording DVB-S2
Even though the new stable would be released, I would not change my main VDR for that. The 1.4.4 just works perfectly ;) main = for wife and kids ;)
br
...hanu
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: ...
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
My (selfish) vote is No.
I do like the fact that 1.5.14 raises some expectation of DVB-S2 support in the (official or distribution's) kernel. So, for me only a DVB-S2 capable VDR 1.6.0 makes any sense. Therefore, I vote NO to a 1.6.0 without DVB-S2.
Carsten.
Klaus Schmidinger wrote: ...
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
I would vote for NO as the current status does not represent enough new functionality to justify a switch from 1.4.7 to the current version. TS recording format would be such a migration reason for me.
On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 11:17 +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Yes.
The linux kernel development has been through similar arguments about the merits of the 2.2/2.4/2.6 development models. I can not see any negatives in releasing a new stable version.
Those that require DVB-S2/H.264 can carry on using the development tree. Those that want the other new features from 1.5 can use the new stable release without getting dragged into requiring a non-distro kernel and frequent updates.
Jon
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 02:24:03PM +0000, Jon Burgess wrote:
The linux kernel development has been through similar arguments about the merits of the 2.2/2.4/2.6 development models. I can not see any negatives in releasing a new stable version.
It's hard to compare VDR to kernels : VDR is maitained exclusively by Klaus, so If there is a "stable" release, he would have to spent lots of time in the stable branch before coming to the new devel branch again.
If you look at the VDR code quality, and stability of the compiled code, I would say, we already have a stable branch in respect to usability :-)
Those that require DVB-S2/H.264 can carry on using the development tree. Those that want the other new features from 1.5 can use the new stable release without getting dragged into requiring a non-distro kernel and frequent updates.
No, I doubt there will be two branches at the same time...
On 02/03/08 17:43, Gregoire Favre wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 02:24:03PM +0000, Jon Burgess wrote:
The linux kernel development has been through similar arguments about the merits of the 2.2/2.4/2.6 development models. I can not see any negatives in releasing a new stable version.
It's hard to compare VDR to kernels : VDR is maitained exclusively by Klaus, so If there is a "stable" release, he would have to spent lots of time in the stable branch before coming to the new devel branch again.
If you look at the VDR code quality, and stability of the compiled code, I would say, we already have a stable branch in respect to usability :-)
Well, then documenting that by calling it 1.6.0 now can't be that wrong ;-).
Those that require DVB-S2/H.264 can carry on using the development tree. Those that want the other new features from 1.5 can use the new stable release without getting dragged into requiring a non-distro kernel and frequent updates.
No, I doubt there will be two branches at the same time...
Once a 1.6.0 is out, there will only be bugfixes in it. No more changes to interfaces, functionality etc.
Development will immediately resume with version 1.7.0. And there doesn't necessarily need to be a stable 1.8.0 - the next stable that includes DVB-S2 and H.264 could get the magical version number 2.0.0 ;-).
Klaus
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 06:07:20PM +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Well, then documenting that by calling it 1.6.0 now can't be that wrong ;-).
Yes, that's a good point :-)
Once a 1.6.0 is out, there will only be bugfixes in it. No more changes to interfaces, functionality etc.
Development will immediately resume with version 1.7.0. And there doesn't necessarily need to be a stable 1.8.0 - the next stable that includes DVB-S2 and H.264 could get the magical version number 2.0.0 ;-).
From HISTORY :
2000-02-19: Version 0.01 2000-07-25: Version 0.6 2001-01-18: Version 0.70 2001-06-02: Version 0.80 2001-08-06: Version 0.90 2002-02-10: Version 0.99 2002-04-07: Version 1.0.0 one month later : 2002-05-09: Version 1.1.0 2003-06-01: Version 1.2.0 a "little later" : 2004-01-04: Version 1.3.0 2006-04-30: Version 1.4.0 a "little later" : 2007-01-07: Version 1.5.0
So from what we see, my impression was right, after a stable release it's a long time to start a new devel...
Maybe the solution would be to give stable responsability to someone else like Linus do a solution ?
Any solution that will be choosen will be fine for me :-)
What I like with the idea of a 1.6 now is that it will help the inclusion of multiproto into the kernel, and what I dislike is that it will certainly slow down the H.264 integration...
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
I would prefer some other features like ttxtsub before DVB-S2 and H.264 support but as this is not an option I vote for:
Yes, now! The driver issue is a perfect situation to make a cut in version numbering and release a stable version. (And there will be enough questions about UTF-8 support/configuration problems. I do not want to imagine what will happen to the mailings list and vdr-portal if a version is released with so many things changed in one step like UTF-8, multiproto drivers and maybe other coming huge modifications. Let's take it step by step)
Christoph
My vote is No.
Reason: teletext subtitles are missing and DVB-subtitles are not fully supported. Because of these VDR core needs to be patched therefore I consider it as incomplete regarding subtitling. If stable version is created now there is high risk that subtitling support will remain incomplete for a very long time.
VDR without patches would be ideal and after those mentioned parts it's pretty close.
Br, Pasi
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:17:05 +0100 Klaus Schmidinger Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de wrote:
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Yes.
The HDTV stuff and possibly a new recording format will be a huge change, I think freezing whatever improvements have gone into 1.5.x is a Good Thing.
Yes, there will be some stuff missing but, like when we have to buy a new PC, in theory there's always something with a better price to performance ratio coming in a few months ... we just don;t care and buy whatever is better now, or keep waiting forever ..
Mattia
What are chances that multiproto will be merged to kernel in the nearest time (1-2 months?) If chances are big, I don't think that it is a good time to lose valuable Klaus's time for releasing & supporting new stable version that will freeze another stable 1.8 with multiproto support till 2009 :) So my vote is is NO in this case
On Sonntag, 3. Februar 2008, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
What are chances that multiproto will be merged to kernel in the nearest time (1-2 months?) If chances are big, I don't think that it is a good time to lose valuable Klaus's time for releasing & supporting new stable version that will freeze another stable 1.8 with multiproto support till 2009 :) So my vote is is NO in this case
As far as I know the merge window for 2.6.25 is almost closed. So the first kernel that could contain multiproto api is 2.6.26. But I doubt it, as multiproto is not even merged to main development branch of the drivers.
Regards Matthias
Am Sonntag, 3. Februar 2008 11:17:05 schrieb Klaus Schmidinger:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes.
I am also keen on having HDTV support in VDR. But as things are now it will probably take some months to get everything done right.
Better get the pressure from a new release by releasing now, and make HDTV right without pressure.
Kind regards, Stefan
Klaus Schmidinger schrieb:
So, here's the straw poll: Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? Yes or No?
Yes, I'ld prefer a stable 1.6.0 now or soon and DVB-S2 support in the upcoming 1.7.x.
Klaus Schmidinger Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de writes:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
No !
I'm still using 1.4.7. It would have been a yes if : - i was using 1.5 already - new dev version 1.7 was about to be started at the same time and : * if development was about to change so that there will be a (distributed) version control system and more than 1 branch/commiter * if the todo list was known and open * if multiple frontends/display with independant osd+control was in the todo list * if the channel list was about to be revised so that it can handle every specific needs * if config files were about to be in XML ! (nah kidding) *g*
NO I WON'T USE MYTHTV ! :-)
Cheers
Hi, fuuuuuuu vdr config files in xml
Biiiiiiitttttttttteeeeeeeee nicht.
BR. Halim
On Feb 3, 2008 10:47 AM, syrius.ml@no-log.org wrote:
- if config files were about to be in XML ! (nah kidding) *g*
That's got to be one of the worst ideas I've heard! :\
Hello Klaus!
No.
As it has been pointed out generally speaking "texting support" is not complete and if new version is released now, it never will. The problem here is that functionality additions are not finished, only partially and adding new stuff is started simultaneously.
Only reason for me to switch over from pathced 1.4 would be that VDR supports complete subtitles and teletext.
When you set up a new stable version out what are you going to manifest there? Version 1.6.0: "texting support" yes / no? Partially yes / partially no? Take your poll... :)
The work you do with VDR is absolutely great but need for closure like "texting support" has been there for years and VDR still is not going to support it properly not even 1.6.0 out of the box? Patch and patch again?
I'm just wondering can't one major issue be properly finished before hopping to another big issue, HDTV support? It can wait like texting support has been waiting for years for closure. Then texting support would be done and then feel free to do what ever is needed to support demands from HDTV users what ever schedule you decide. :D
Br, Markku
On 02/03/08 20:30, Markku Virtanen wrote:
Hello Klaus!
No.
As it has been pointed out generally speaking "texting support" is not complete and if new version is released now, it never will.
By "texting support" I assume you mean teletext subtitles. Well, they won't be implemented before DVB-S2/H.264 anyway. So it doesn't really make much difference whether there is a version 1.6.0 now ;-).
The problem here is that functionality additions are not finished, only partially and adding new stuff is started simultaneously.
Most of the time working on VDR is fun - as long as I can work in areas that I am interested in. As much as I try to attend to things others need (like subtitles in general, for instance - a thing I personally have absolutely no use for), there is this slight tendency to prefer working in areas that I find more fascinating at the time. Right now, after building a new VDR for DVB-S2 and putting one of these HDe cards into it, I'm quite eager to see what this HDTV everybody is hyping about is really like ;-)
Only reason for me to switch over from pathced 1.4 would be that VDR supports complete subtitles and teletext.
A stable version 1.6.0 would in no way force you to actually use it. Apparently you have a solution that currently works for you, so, by all means, keep on using it.
When you set up a new stable version out what are you going to manifest there? Version 1.6.0: "texting support" yes / no? Partially yes / partially no? Take your poll... :)
I guess it will say "Support for DVB subtitles".
The work you do with VDR is absolutely great but need for closure like "texting support" has been there for years and VDR still is not going to support it properly not even 1.6.0 out of the box? Patch and patch again?
I wonder what comments I'd get if I said "Hey, frack all that HDTV hype - what's really importand are teletext subtitles!". I guess it will never be possible to please everybody.
I'm just wondering can't one major issue be properly finished before hopping to another big issue, HDTV support? It can wait like texting support has been waiting for years for closure. Then texting support would be done and then feel free to do what ever is needed to support demands from HDTV users what ever schedule you decide. :D
There's an important message in what you wrote here: "feel free"! Yes, I want to feel free to spend my spare time doing things that primarily interest myself, and on a secondary level are useful for others. Call me selfish - but that's how it is.
Klaus
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
By "texting support" I assume you mean teletext subtitles. Well, they won't be implemented before DVB-S2/H.264 anyway. So it doesn't really make much difference whether there is a version 1.6.0 now ;-).
Implementing also ttxtsubs would be an enormous pro for VDR in all the "subtitling not dubbing" world. That would make it possible for people to use binary versions form repositories of their favourite Linux distributions. I think it could bring a boost for VDR's user base (and I guess the same argument is valid for h.264 too). And for some reason distros seem to prefer versions labelled as stable over the ones with "developer" in the title...
But since you have made up your mind and ttxtsubs will not be the next goal in any case, I think I must rethink the issue and say yes to your original question. It is a good time to make a stable release now, if you are taking on such a big task as being HDTV compliant :)
Most of the time working on VDR is fun - as long as I can work in areas that I am interested in. As much as I try to attend to things others need (like subtitles in general, for instance - a thing I personally have absolutely no use for), there is this slight tendency to prefer working in areas that I find more fascinating at the time. Right now, after building a new VDR for DVB-S2 and putting one of these HDe cards into it, I'm quite eager to see what this HDTV everybody is hyping about is really like ;-)
I see you are having fun for it feels like you have been quite productive lately :) Hopefully support for HDTV will bring along a restructured OSD too, made to look good with high resolution screens...
-Petri
PS. To put it short, I change my vote from no to YES.
No
On 03/02/2008, Klaus Schmidinger Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de wrote:
There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the "multiproto" driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM).
In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would make sense to revoke the switch to the "multiproto" driver and go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch now.
If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then. I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR for HDTV before looking into these patches.
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Klaus
vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Yes for version 1.6.0 now :)
----------------------------------- Pizzak Administrator of vdr-italia wiki (http://vdr.spaghettilinux.org/)
Hi
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
No, The reason is really easy to explain: I am happy with a stable 1.4.7 and I have no problem using a developer version, but if a new stable VDR version arrives, I will be "forced" to build an upgrade package for my Gen2VDR distri, which would cause some work ....
Helmut
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Yes or No?
Yes.
Although there have not been too many improvements, a lot of plugins had to be updated due to UTF-8 support etc. If you continue with huge things like H.264 and TS recording (yes, yes, yes :)), it might even take longer getting a new stable base for distributions etc. (although I am using 1.4.7 and still satisfied with it).
I fear that waiting for multiproto to get into the kernel might become a neverendings story like the unbearable discussion before (including all those indignities) about future DVB driver development. Maybe we can start a bet when this finally going to happen... ;) Furthermore, I think, making it stable will just delay the H.264 development for several weeks (the last steps to the last stable releases might have taken a maximum of 6 weeks) while waiting for H.264 and TS recording will take a lot of months including waiting and evaluating supporting hardware (decoder cards, graphic card drivers) and software (xine/ffmpeg etc.).
With kind regards
Joerg
On 3 Feb 2008, at 12:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
No. I think the next stable version should have complete subtitling support (both DVB and teletext subtitles). Also generic H.264 support would be nice (for the Xine plugin etc.). However, the next stable VDR should not require drivers that are not in vanilla 2.6.24 tree.
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Yes,
However, if most people will vote no, on upcoming version with you should allow user to build vdr without multiproto support too, until multiproto will merge to linux kernel.
Eddi
My vote is yes.
Release early, Release Often.
Perhaps teletext subtitling is missing, however it was missing from 1.4 and so why not release. (Is there a teletext patch for those users who must have this functionality?. Or even better, can a teletext plugin be written)
Also, reading between the lines it would seem that you will release a new developer version straight away anyway. So what is there to loose? I don't think you (Klaus) are going to slow down development on developer versions any time soon.
On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 11:17 +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the "multiproto" driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM).
In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would make sense to revoke the switch to the "multiproto" driver and go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch now.
If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then. I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR for HDTV before looking into these patches.
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Klaus
vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
On Feb 3, 2008 12:17 PM, Klaus Schmidinger Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Klaus
Yet another scandinavian opinion for ttxtsupport here but if you're already set your mind to prioritise H.264 over it my answer would be 'yes.'
I (would imagine I'm not the only one) for sure will have to buy a totally new computer to handle H.264 and would like to freeze current one with stable vdr release assuming major flaws or security matters (not that there are any ;) will be patched to a certain stable release instead of 'previous beta -version (1.5.13 that is nowadays.)
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
No.
I really want to see in VDR (stable and devel-versions) the fastest implementation the dvb-s2, h.264, ts-recording support.
Igor.
Hi,
No, i vote to wait for the DVD-S2 and maybe if Klaus can integrate H.264.
regards, Chris On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 11:17 +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the "multiproto" driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM).
In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would make sense to revoke the switch to the "multiproto" driver and go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch now.
If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then. I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR for HDTV before looking into these patches.
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Klaus
vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
I usually lurk here so my vote represents the 'user' community more than the 'dev'..
Yes to stable 1.6.0 with current kernel-drivers - VDR needs new users that can get it running easily out of the box with a debian bare bones install. The people who want HDTV support are going to go with the dev-releases anyway.
Yes to switching to TS recording, maybe review the metadata fileformats a bit and allow more extendability and plugin data store there (no XML pretty please!)
Yes to ttextsubs too (oh sorry you didn't ask! ;)
- Vaizki
-----Original Message----- From: vdr-bounces@linuxtv.org [mailto:vdr-bounces@linuxtv.org] On Behalf Of Klaus Schmidinger Sent: 3. helmikuuta 2008 12:17 To: vdr@linuxtv.org Subject: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the "multiproto" driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM).
In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would make sense to revoke the switch to the "multiproto" driver and go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch now.
If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then. I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR for HDTV before looking into these patches.
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Klaus
_______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:06:19 +0200 From: Jukka.Vaisanen@exomi.com To: vdr@linuxtv.org Subject: Re: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
I usually lurk here so my vote represents the 'user' community more than the 'dev'..
Yes to stable 1.6.0 with current kernel-drivers - VDR needs new users that can get it running easily out of the box with a debian bare bones install. The people who want HDTV support are going to go with the dev-releases anyway.
Yes to switching to TS recording, maybe review the metadata fileformats a bit and allow more extendability and plugin data store there (no XML pretty please!)
Yes to ttextsubs too (oh sorry you didn't ask! ;)
- Vaizki
-----Original Message----- From: vdr-bounces@linuxtv.org [mailto:vdr-bounces@linuxtv.org] On Behalf Of Klaus Schmidinger Sent: 3. helmikuuta 2008 12:17 To: vdr@linuxtv.org Subject: [vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
There has been some controversy about my recent decision to move forward and require the "multiproto" driver for VDR in the developer version. It is also currently rather unclear whether the current PES recording format can be kept to handle HDTV, or whether it would make sense (or even be feasible) to switch to TS (as suggested by the people from RMM).
In order to take the edge of this, I was wondering if it would make sense to revoke the switch to the "multiproto" driver and go straight towards a stable version 1.6.0 with what is now in version 1.5.14. This should satisfy all those who are eagerly awaiting a new stable version, without forcing them to make the driver switch now.
If we decide to go that way, I would release a version 1.5.15 with what could become the new stable, wait until like the end of the month to see whether it still needs some minor fixes, and call it 1.6.0 then. I know there are still some patches out there that some would expect to go into the next stable version, but I actually want to prepare VDR for HDTV before looking into these patches.
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Klaus
vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
I agree, yes to stable 1.6.0 with current kernel-drivers.
I also like to see ttxtsubs support in stable version. _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
On Feb 4, 2008 12:06 AM, Jukka Vaisanen Jukka.Vaisanen@exomi.com wrote:
Yes to stable 1.6.0 with current kernel-drivers - VDR needs new users that can get it running easily out of the box with a debian bare bones install. The people who want HDTV support are going to go with the dev-releases anyway.
I totally disagree. Assuming the HDTV guys want to go with dev releases is not what I've seen from the majority of one of them, it's actually the opposite. For a lot of people there's a stigma that "developer" = unstable/crash/bugged/etc. They feel that stable releases are 'safer' for them.
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes.
It would be pity if that means that the stable version stays at 1.6.0 and doesn't receive any more bugfixes though.
cu Ludwig
Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes.
It would be pity if that means that the stable version stays at 1.6.0 and doesn't receive any more bugfixes though.
Bugs ? The VDR is the only bugfree software known. You must not mix features and bugs.
On Sunday 03 February 2008 11:17:05 Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Yes.
Cya, Ed
Klaus Schmidinger a écrit :
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
1) a stable release shouldn't stop the current development for a long time, thus shouldn't delay the S2/H264 and other neat future features,
2) a stable release is becoming kind of important (with features as they are in 1.4.13) for packagers and regular users, because of simple delay between releases,
3) developpers of this list will continue to use the next development suite either, so the stable release won't much impact them
This is a Yes.
Hi,
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
yes
Best regards, Matthias
2008/2/3, Klaus Schmidinger Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
No. For reasons already mentioned in this thread.
Regards, Joachim.
On 02/03/08 11:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
... So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
Here's the result of this poll:
total yes no
VDR-ML: 66 38 28
vdrportal.de: 321 251 70 ------------------
total: 387 289 98 ==================
So this means I'll work towards a stable 1.6.0 these days and will start the 1.7.x developer line ASAP after 1.6.0 is out.
Klaus
In any case - thanks to Klaus that community were involved in this process. IMHO feature requests polls will also be useful. As we see now, teletext subtitles are also important feature for many of VDR users, may be there are others too :)
On Feb 3, 2008 11:17 AM, Klaus Schmidinger Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de wrote:
So, here's the straw poll:
Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
Yes or No?
In my opinion, Yes (a stable release never hurts).
<Totally off topic and only my opinion> A side note : I think most of the No answer comes from people who were expecting specific modifications (txtsub, full dvb subtitle, dvb-s2, h264, ts recording, ...). IMHO answering no in that case is not very adult and comes mainly from the frustration of not having exactly what Santa Klaus (I know it's easy) was supposed to bring. </Totally off topic and only my opinion>
On Feb 4, 2008 7:15 PM, Sebastien Lucas sebastien.lucas@gmail.com wrote:
<Totally off topic and only my opinion> A side note : I think most of the No answer comes from people who were expecting specific modifications (txtsub, full dvb subtitle, dvb-s2, h264, ts recording, ...). IMHO answering no in that case is not very adult and comes mainly from the frustration of not having exactly what Santa Klaus (I know it's easy) was supposed to bring. </Totally off topic and only my opinion>
Albeit there is a lot of truth in your comment, and I do notice some resemplance to my lines of thinking in your claim, I would like to point out why I chose NO (which I then changed into yes...):
Ttxtsubs support => No need to patch VDR core in countries using subtitles. H.264 support => Possibility to use VDR in countries that are passing by mpeg2 and going straight to h.264 instead
I know that both of those can be achieved with existing patches, but that will require either a non-vanilla VDR in distribution repositories or self-compiled VDR. Therefore, if marked as stable in its current state, VDR will not yet be easier to adopt by new users. It will bring new features and improvements for many old users, that I will not deny.
I feel like I have been too much on the negative side and fail to remember at times that this is just a hobby of Klaus', so let me express my thanks to Klaus for a well chosen hobby that brings joy to a lot of users :)
-Petri
Hello Klaus,
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:17:05 +0100 Klaus Schmidinger Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de wrote:
| So, here's the straw poll: | | Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in | version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support? | | Yes or No? | | Klaus
Count me as a "Yes".
Thanks,
Philippe
On Sun, Feb 03 2008, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
Yes or No?
No, because 1.4.7 is quite good enough today for most users and distributions, and those who need more can compile 1.5.X with additional kernel drivers. So you don't need to bother with 2 branches (1.6 and 1.7). Cheers, Peter
-
Achim Tuffentsammer -
Ales Jurik -
Alfred Zastrow -
Andrew Herron -
Andrey Kuzmin -
Andy Carter -
Anssi Hannula -
Antti Hartikainen -
Arthur Konovalov -
Carsten Koch -
Chris Ariyo -
Christoph Haubrich -
Clemens Kirchgatterer -
Darren Salt -
Dave P -
DD --- -
derblubber -
Ed Hein -
Eddi De Pieri -
Ernst Herzberg -
Füley István -
Gregoire Favre -
Halim Sahin -
Hannu Tirkkonen -
Helmut Auer -
Igor -
Jaakko Kemppainen -
Jan Exner -
Jere Malila -
Joachim Wilke -
Jon Burgess -
Jukka Vaisanen -
Jörg Knitter -
Klaus Schmidinger -
Lauri Tischler -
Ludwig Nussel -
Magnus Andersson -
Magnus Hörlin -
Malcolm Caldwell -
Manu Abraham -
Markku Virtanen -
Martin Binder (AON) -
Matthias Fechner -
Matthias Schniedermeyer -
Matthias Schwarzott -
Mattia Rossi -
Mikko Salo -
Morfsta -
Nicolas Huillard -
Pasi Juppo -
Patrick Boettcher -
Patrick Rother -
Peter Münster -
Petri Helin -
Philippe Gramoullé -
Pizzak -
Rainer Marks -
Reiner Buehl -
Rene Hertell -
Rolf Ahrenberg -
Sebastian Frei -
Sebastien Lucas -
Stefan Hußfeldt -
Stefan Taferner -
syrius.ml＠no-log.org -
Theunis Potgieter -
Thomas Sailer -
Tobi -
Tuomas Jormola -
Udo Richter -
VDR User -
Ville Skyttä -
Ville-Pekka Vainio -
Wolfgang Rohdewald