Misleading informations on "official" v4l2 website

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



Hello all,

I recently had an interesting discussion with someone who claimed that
videodevX from Bill Dirks is the official v4l2 version...

So, IMHO the informations on Bill Dirk's are quite misleading regarding
the v4l2 version that made it into the kernel now finally. And people
are still reading it...

Additionally, no current v4l2 modules are available as a standalone
package to compile for 2.4.x, like videodevX used to be.

Because of this, I made a backport of the 2.5.x. v4l2 modules for my own
usage...

So what are we going to do about this? Some proposals:

1) Delete all occurunces regarding videodevX et.al. from the official
web page, and instead provide a backport of the 2.5.x driver.

If this is ok, I assume that nobody has time for this, so I volunteer
for this job. (Yes, you heard it right. Bill can you contact me in
private in case everybody agrees?)

2) Clean up the other pages, mainly the Peoples & Projects. (I'll do
this, too, check the links etc.)

3) What about the API documentation? Did anybody did a review? Michael
Schimek perhaps?

Comments are very welcome.

Bill, what do you think about it? If Bill is "Out of business", we could
perhaps put the "new" docs and page to bytesex.org. Gerd?

CU
Michael.






[Index of Archives]     [Linux DVB]     [Video Disk Recorder]     [Asterisk]     [Photo]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Util Linux NG]     [Xfree86]     [Free Photo Albums]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Women]     [ALSA Users]     [ALSA Devel]     [Linux USB]

Powered by Linux