On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:42:24 +0100 Alan Cox wrote: | On Sul, 2004-08-29 at 17:33, Nemosoft Unv. wrote: | > That's one of the reasons I requested PWC to be removed. For me, it's also a | > matter of quality: what good is a half-baked driver in the kernel when you | > need to patch it first to get it working fully again? I don't want my name | > attached to that. | | It works very well for some users without that code. The raw pass | through for the compressed bitstreams solved the problems for the rest. | You appear to be seeking to hurt your userbase for your own ends. Thats | not pleasant behaviour. I can more than understand | "take my name off it, make it clear its nothing to do with me". | | > > Its also trivial to move the decompressor to user space | > > where it should be anyway. | > | > *sigh* As I have been saying a 100 times before, it is illogical, cumbersome | > for both users and developers, and will probably take a very long time to | > adopt (notwithstanding V4L2 [*]). | | Video4linux has -always- specified decompressors in user space. This was | pointed out ages ago. V4L2 rationalised it even more clearly. | | > *IF* there was a commonly accepted video "middle-layer", this would not pose | > much of a problem. But there is no such thing yet. | > | > (maybe that's something for a 2.7 kernel...) | | No its for userspace. Just add it to the relevant video frameworks. | | > Seriously, this probably would not have happened if, back in 2001, the | > driver was rejected on the basis of this hook (you were there, Alan...) I | > never made a secret of it, it has been in the driver from day 1 and its | > purpose was clearly spelled out. If it had been rejected, I would probably | > have just switched to '3rd party module' mode and maintained it outside the | > kernel indefinetely. I would not have liked it, but it would have been | > acceptable. | | Back in 2001 I was saying that this was broken and it belonged in user | space.
Yes, that's right, and it should be done by now... We kept expecting updates in that direction. | > of thing in the kernel. However, since we're a bit late to react, we'll | > leave it in the 2.4 and 2.6 series, but versions beyond that (2.7-devel, | > etc) will not have PWC included in this form. In the mean time, we're | > asking you to think of a solution". Chances are the situation would have | > been fully resolved before that (and I mean fully *hint*). | | There isn't a plan to have a 2.7 development tree but to do gradual | development until something major comes up. That makes the suggestion | rather more tricky - as does the legal question. -- ~Randy ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel