Am Freitag, den 19.03.2010, 12:04 -0700 schrieb VDR User:
> Keeping v4l1 because some guys are still using some ancient setup is
> not a good reason. Keeping v4l1 because some app devs still haven't
> bothered to update their apps is not a good reason, especially given
> the amount of time they'v
David Ellingsworth wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> wrote:
>> David Ellingsworth wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>>> wrote:
The V4L1 drivers that lasts are the ones without maintainers and probably
without
a large
Hans de Goede wrote:
>> 3) The removal of V4L1 means that the existing applications should not
>> try to include
>> videodev.h with newer kernels or their compilations will break (easy
>> to fix, but better
>> to remind application developers that may be reading this thread).
>> Also, the removal
Hi,
On 03/19/2010 02:01 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Hans Verkuil wrote:
Hi all,
V4L1 support has been marked as scheduled for removal for a long time. The
deadline for that in the feature-removal-schedule.txt file was July 2009.
As reference, this is what's written there:
What: Video
Hi,
On 03/19/2010 04:49 PM, David Ellingsworth wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
wrote:
The V4L1 drivers that lasts are the ones without maintainers and probably
without
a large users base. So, basically legacy hardware. So, their removals make
sense.
In many
Keeping v4l1 because some guys are still using some ancient setup is
not a good reason. Keeping v4l1 because some app devs still haven't
bothered to update their apps is not a good reason, especially given
the amount of time they've had to complete this task. Keeping v4l1
because package maintain
Hi,
On 03/19/2010 09:46 AM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
On Friday 19 March 2010 08:59:08 Hans Verkuil wrote:
Hi all,
V4L1 support has been marked as scheduled for removal for a long time.
The
deadline for that in the feature-removal-schedule.txt file was July
2009.
I think it is time that we remove
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:00 PM, David Ellingsworth
wrote:
> Yes it is an old camera, but that does not mean there aren't people
> out there who still own cameras which would otherwise be usable if the
> driver worked. And sure people could just buy another camera.. but why
> replace hardware that
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
wrote:
> David Ellingsworth wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>> wrote:
>>> The V4L1 drivers that lasts are the ones without maintainers and probably
>>> without
>>> a large users base. So, basically legacy har
David Ellingsworth wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> wrote:
>> The V4L1 drivers that lasts are the ones without maintainers and probably
>> without
>> a large users base. So, basically legacy hardware. So, their removals make
>> sense.
>>
>
> In many ways the abo
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
wrote:
> The V4L1 drivers that lasts are the ones without maintainers and probably
> without
> a large users base. So, basically legacy hardware. So, their removals make
> sense.
>
In many ways the above statement is a catch 22. Most, if no
On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 09:46 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > On Friday 19 March 2010 08:59:08 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> V4L1 support has been marked as scheduled for removal for a long time.
> >> The
> >> deadline for that in the feature-removal-schedule.txt file was July
> >> 2009.
Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> Do we still have V4L1-only drivers that use videobuf ?
>
> No V4L1-only drivers use videobuf, but videobuf has support for the V4L1
> compat support in V4L2 drivers (the cgmbuf ioctl). So when we remove the
> compat support, then that videobuf code can be removed as well.
Hans Verkuil wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> V4L1 support has been marked as scheduled for removal for a long time. The
> deadline for that in the feature-removal-schedule.txt file was July 2009.
As reference, this is what's written there:
What: Video4Linux API 1 ioctls and from Video devices.
When: Ju
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>
>> On Friday 19 March 2010 08:59:08 Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> V4L1 support has been marked as scheduled for removal for a long time.
>>> The
>>> deadline for that in the feature-removal-schedule.txt file was July
>>> 2009.
>>>
>>
On Friday 19 March 2010 09:46:02 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > On Friday 19 March 2010 08:59:08 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> V4L1 support has been marked as scheduled for removal for a long time.
> >> The deadline for that in the feature-removal-schedule.txt file was July
> >> 2009.
> >>
> On Friday 19 March 2010 08:59:08 Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> V4L1 support has been marked as scheduled for removal for a long time.
>> The
>> deadline for that in the feature-removal-schedule.txt file was July
>> 2009.
>>
>> I think it is time that we remove the V4L1 compatibility suppo
On Friday 19 March 2010 08:59:08 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> V4L1 support has been marked as scheduled for removal for a long time. The
> deadline for that in the feature-removal-schedule.txt file was July 2009.
>
> I think it is time that we remove the V4L1 compatibility support from V4L2
Hi all,
V4L1 support has been marked as scheduled for removal for a long time. The
deadline for that in the feature-removal-schedule.txt file was July 2009.
I think it is time that we remove the V4L1 compatibility support from V4L2
drivers for 2.6.35.
It would help with the videobuf cleanup as w
19 matches
Mail list logo
