Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:32:37 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> Cc: emulation@FreeBSD.org, multimedia@FreeBSD.org, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Linuxolator v4l2/dvb patches (like for webcamd + skype...) Message-ID: <20110416113237.000035c9@unknown> In-Reply-To: <20110415174620.GA31480@triton8.kn-bremen.de> References: <20110412172227.GA45105@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <4DA4A1AC.90601@yandex.ru> <20110412222945.39b7a47b@ukr.net> <4DA4ADC7.6020101@yandex.ru> <20110412230426.550e8155@ukr.net> <20110413170446.GA84392@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <4DA5E0DB.2020009@FreeBSD.org> <20110413182157.GA87724@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <4DA72B26.7010009@FreeBSD.org> <20110415174620.GA31480@triton8.kn-bremen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:46:20 +0200 Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 08:13:10PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > > > BTW, just in case: > > http://www.quickcamteam.net/documentation/faq/logitech-webcam-linux-usb-incompatibilities > > > > P.S. > > http://blogs.skype.com/linux/2011/04/2_2_beta.html > > Ok I just tested that version and found another bug in the patches, > but even after fixing that I couldn't get video to work with my > gspca camera that doesn't do yuv video. :( Maybe the f10 version > of libv4l that is now in ports is just too old? (Does anyone else > get that version to work with a cam that does do yuv like a uvc?) > > netchild, you said you have an f10 build env iirc, could you try > building the latest libv4l on there for me to test? Can you give me please some URLs? One where to download the source, and one of the spec file (and patches if any). > I have now split the dvb handling into a seperate kld because of > the LGPL'd header it uses (linux_dvbwrapper.ko), but it looks like > I'll have to make that a port as netchild still had concerns putting > that version in base... It's more a "I do not want to be the one to put LGPLed stuff into a kernel module", even if the common believe is that such a LGPLed header does make the rest derived code / tainted. Currently I do not intend to spend the time which is necessary to explain the issues to core@ and discuss it with them. If someone else is willing to spend time for this and if core@ tells me they are ok with this header entering the src/sys tree, I shut up and commit it. Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110416113237.000035c9>