I still fail to see your problem. There are going to be three options:
- if you have a recent kernel >= 2.6.15 then use 0.6.x
- otherwise you can try to compile v4l CVS and 0.6.x (which might fail to
compile)
- and if that doesn't work use 0.4.x. Nothing wrong with that.
Now it would be nice to have a stable v4l release that contains the 2.6.15
changes and that we can offer as a fourth option. And I hope that that
will be done. But I see that as a nice bonus. Anyway, I suspect from the
standpoint of packaging you should offer two packages: 0.4.x and 0.6.x.
Don't bother with the v4l/ivtv option as that only complicates matters.
The 0.5.x series needs the v4l CVS of course, but that's logical since
it's an unstable release and the drivers aren't in the kernel yet. Future
0.6.x and up will also offer this option in case you need the latest
version of a v4l driver (e.g. new tuners) that is not yet in the kernel.
But in all cases that's only needed until the change ends up in the
kernel.
Hans
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 08:29:43PM +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> > > That's correct. It won't be released until either 2.6.15 is
>> > > released and/or a stable v4l2 is released. The video4linux project
>> > > makes regular releases, so we pick one that works and recommend
>> > > that one to build against.
>> >
>> > Where is the latest release? The latest release I know of was 1 1/2
>> > years ago on April 2004. The versions in CVS are still the ones from
>> > that date.
>>
>> http://www.linuxtv.org/downloads/video4linux/
>>
>> Latest is one month old.
>
> These are cvs snapshots, not releases. They should be more stable than
> checking out cvs at a random time like I tried yesterday.
>
>> Are you still looking at the old bytesex.org site?
>
> No, the cvs snapshots from Gerd have been removed some time ago to
> avoid confusion, but I was referring to real releases like the ones
> made last time 1 1/2 years ago:
>
> http://dl.bytesex.org/releases/video4linux/
>
> Whether Mauro will still keep the splitting into 3 (now at least 4)
> families of drivers at release time I don't know.
>
> To be honest: In the last 1 1/2 years the kernel gods had been nicer
> to v4l subsystem and changes made it faster into kernels than
> before. This is why Gerd didn't invest in pushing out new releases
> more often.
>
> Still, if dependencies like ivtv -> v4l and other are created it would
> be good to have v4l releases again to have the dependent modules
> something to define as a base.
>
> But that's not on this list to decide :)
> --
> Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
> _______________________________________________
> ivtv-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-devel
_______________________________________________
ivtv-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-devel
