[ATrpms-devel] Re: Fedora 2 building MythTv SRPM

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net
Mon Aug 16 13:37:47 CEST 2004


Hi,

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 08:51:58PM +1000, Ben Stanley wrote:
> I'm taking up this old thread, specifically to do with the
> linuxtv-dvb-devel package.
> 
> In message
> http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/2004-June/000268.html
> 
> Axel Thimm wrote that the linuxtv-dvb-devel package had just been
> removed. Which distribution had it been removed from? Fedora, or atrpms?
> Any idea where I can find out why it was removed?

Not linuxtv-dvb-devel had been removed, but dvb support in the kernel,
e.g. in Fedora. linuxtv-dvb-devel has never existed, it is a
placeholder for a package yet to be created that will contain the
neccessary kernel-independent headers for mythtv to build against.

> At the moment I'm proposing to come up with a new linuxtv-dvb-devel
> package. I don't believe that a linuxtv-dvb package is necessary,
> though, as the functionality is in the 2.6 kernel already.

As said, it comes and goes depending on the kernel update you are
running :(

> I note that xine solves the problem by including the necessary headers
> as part of its own build sources. I haven't looked at what mplayer does.
> 
> While the functionality may be merged into the kernel in 2.6, that does
> not mean that the dvb headers are installed by the kernel into
> /usr/include. That seems to be the responsibility of glibc (this
> maintains the separation between the kernel and userspace). Until glibc
> catches up, it seems that a linuxtv-dvb-devel package will be necessary.
> 
> Comments?

Perhaps copying xine's method and having the headers as separate
sources for mythtv? E.g. have
http://linuxtv.org/download/dvb/linuxtv-dvb-1.1.1.tar.bz2 (or a CVS
version) be embedded in mythtv-.*.src.rpm and have the headers
extracted at mythtv's %setup time.

Would you like to test whether this is feasible, e.g. whether the
headers can simply be pointed at, or whether mythtv requires
configured and prepared kernel sources, too (don't think so, but could
be the case).
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/attachments/20040816/821c4a82/attachment.bin


More information about the atrpms-devel mailing list