[ATrpms-devel] The state of lirc...

[Paulo Cavalcanti]

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 12:00 AM, David Rees <drees76 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:12 PM, John Robinson
> <john.robinson at anonymous.org.uk> wrote:
> > On 09/05/2008 16:56, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> >> Remind me again... Why does atrpms continue to package lirc?
> >
> > Because Fedora x (some x) and ELx (any x) don't include it, but Axel
> > supports them.
>
> Jarod's point was to go ahead and build them for the distros that
> don't have the proper support upstream, but for those that do, drop it
> or only build the parts that are needed (like the kmdls possibly in
> F8's case).
>

Which modules are missing?

In my experience, it is much more problematic
to maintain a partial package than the whole thing.  You end up having to
compile everything
to throw away the common part. That is exactly what happens to xine,  and
its free/non-free part (its nuts in my opinion, but solves a license
problem).

The video4linux package in ATrpms exists just to cope with the rapid
development upstream, and
the big delay to see the new code in a new kernel. Furthermore,  I do not
like having part of a package compiled in a building system and part on
another. Is to ask for problems...

Maybe we could start using the same nomenclature for lirc and its
components? This way, those who do not need anything special could just use
the RedHat package and nothing else, or switch from one version to the other
very easily.


-- 
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/attachments/20080510/5faec77c/attachment.html