On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 04:33:36PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le Lun 13 mars 2006 00:13, Axel Thimm a écrit : > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 06:53:26PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > >> The situation would not even arise if ivtv was available as a > >> kernel patch (meaning - building with normal kernel tools on > >> vanilla kernel *not* custom tools on v4l cvs). That's the > >> canonical kernel way and it is supported by Fedora (just drop the > >> patch in the srpm as for example the wireless guys have been > >> doing - the wireless tree didn't even exist when ivtv declared > >> merging time!) > > > > That's not true, Fedora Core only includes non-upstream bits when > > there is some obvious vendor interest like wlan, selinux, cluster/gfs > > and xen. Otherwise if you come up with any non-enterprise grade > > requests you get the usual "make it happen upstream". > > That's 100% true I can modify any FC kernel SRPM to include a patch in ~15 > min of work, you can contrast it with the work needed to integrate ivtv > cleanly.
No, you certainly know better than that. This in not "supported by Fedora". If you define by "supported by a vendor" that he allows you to have your custom kernels, then show me one who doesn't. > >> [... lots of ranting ...] > > > >> Here. > >> I'm done. > >> Hope I won't resend something like this in a few months. > >> I'm probably dead wrong about some things but that's how ivtv looks like > >> from a bystander point of view. > > > > Nicolas, I think you're treating the project developers quite > > unfair. > > You can think whatever you want. Thank God for that! :) > > ivtv has undergone very rapid development even though at a slower > > pace in the new year, and as Hans pointed out, lots of things are > > visible on the v4l lists or Linus' changelogs. > > > > The ivtv project has managed to keep its users very happy. > > The ivtv has managed to keep *one* class of users very happy. That class being the *vast* majority of users. > > New kernels are supported in a very timely manner > > That's not really true How do you base that statement? Name a released kernel that wasn't supported within days at most. > Axel, if you want to be credible about this, I'd suggest you start taking > all feedback, the one you like with the one you don't. ivtv right now is > organised to catter about one sort of user (your users if I wanted to > oversimplify), and actively discourages any other feedback (your answer is > unfortunately a textbook example of this). > > When Hans says he doesn't have the time for anything else he's brutaly > honest (even if I wish he had answered something else). When *you* say > everything is fine, you're not. > > I only posted to debunk the myth all users where happy with the quiproquo, > fully expecting some abuse in return. I'm sorry I was right. Though the > "real" user bit is a bit rich. > > I don't doubt no one will dare asking the same question for a few months > now. Score 1 for the real users. Your definition of a user seems to be very limited and focused to yourself - don't call others biased. I'm talking about the majority of users, and I usually don't show off with stats, but to prove the point of majority # grep -c ivtv /var/log/httpd/dl.atrpms.net-access_log.2006-03 31724 And that's rpms for Fedora/RHEL only, doesn't include tarballs, Mandriva rpms etc. And it's just for 12 1/2 days. Yes ivtv is very successful and the packaged form is the preferred form *the real users* utilize. You are unnecessarily polemic towards this project and now in particular against me I think. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgpbonnLMslmF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ivtv-devel mailing list [email protected] http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-devel
