At 21:08 2005-06-20, you wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 04:43:40PM +0200, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> I built the kernel modules without pwc in the first place because the
> release note for the kernel seemed to say that the module was crippled and
> without decompression AGAIN.
> Have I understood this right?
Yes, alan post a patch (with the decompressor) for the 2.6.12-rc1, and one
month ago, the nemosoft asks to remove the code. Until we find a agreement,
Linus and Alan decides to remove the decompressor from the kernel.A
I've post a patch to the v4l2 mailing list to add some information, before i
can return the raw compressed stream to user space, and then i need to write
a small library to decode this frame. Patch for xawtv will be provides using
this tiny library.
Luc
Will this mean that every program that wants to be able to read from a
camera using pwc must use this external library to be able to read from the
camera?
Does it also mean that I have to build this special support into Motion?
And then next month some other camera driver gets crippled and I have to
add support for that. And then the next and next?
If this is the case this brings us back to the early 80s where programs
like Word Perfect had to have drivers for 200 different printers.
The whole idea of a common V4L or V4L2 API goes in the toilet.
Where is all this going to end? Or have I misunderstood the whole thing.
Kenneth
--
Kenneth Lavrsen,
Glostrup, Denmark
Home Page - http://www.lavrsen.dk
_______________________________________________
pwc mailing list
http://lists.saillard.org/mailman/listinfo/pwc
|