Ronald Bultje wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 13:07, Michael Hunold wrote: > > But IMHO this should be handled smarter, like "xawtv" does, ie. > > distinguish between the "old" and the "new" v4l2 API and support both. > > Why? 'old' v4l2 is dead, long live 'new' v4l2. The 'old' v4l2 should be > forgotten a.s.a.p., in favour of the 'new' v4l2. It makes the switch easier for the users, as they don't have to care that much about the versions numbers. And it shouldn't be hard do do: video4linux apps often check for the available API anyway for v4l1 vs. v4l2. Making that v4l1 / v4l2-old / v4l2 should be easy. The code for the v4l2-old exists. You don't have to write new stuff, just keeping the old v4l2 code and writing some lines of glue code does the trick. It doesn't make sense to keep and maintain that forever, I likely drop v4l2-old support from xawtv as soon as it would cause major work to keep it working. But as long as the currently existing code works as-is it will stay. Gerd -- Weil die späten Diskussionen nicht mal mehr den Rotwein lohnen. -- Wacholder in "Melanie"
