Re: [ANNOUNCE] git tree repositories & libv4l

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>]

Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 02/22/2010 11:54 PM, Brandon Philips wrote:
>> On 18:24 Sat 23 Jan 2010, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> lib/
>>>>     libv4l1/
>>>>     libv4l2/
>>>>     libv4lconvert/
>>>> utils/
>>>>     v4l2-dbg
>>>>     v4l2-ctl
>>>>     cx18-ctl
>>>>     ivtv-ctl
>>>> contrib/
>>>>     test/
>>>>     everything else
>>>>
>>
>>    git clone git://ifup.org/philips/create-v4l-utils.git
>>    cd create-v4l-utils/
>>    ./convert.sh
>>
>> You should now have v4l-utils.git which should have this directory
>> struture. If we need to move other things around let me know and I can
>> tweak name-filter.sh
>>
> 
> Ok, so this will give me a local tree, how do I get this onto linuxtv.org ?

I'll answer first the next question ;)
> 
> Also I need someone to pull:
> http://linuxtv.org/hg/~hgoede/libv4l
> 
> (this only contains libv4l commits)
> 
> Into the:
> http://linuxtv.org/hg/v4l-dvb
> 
> Repository, I guess I can ask this directly to Douglas?

Request it to Douglas. Another option is to merge it locally on your repository,
convert it to git.

After having it converted to git, you should create a repository there for you,
with the -git procedures I've emailed to the ones with accounts there. Then,
ping me and I'll move it to a better place and add permissions for the others
to merge there.
> 
>> Thoughts?
> 
> I've one question, I think we want to do tarbal releases
> from this new repo (just like I've been doing with libv4l for a while
> already), and then want distro's to pick up these releases, right ?
> 
> Are we going to do separate tarbals for the lib and utils directories,
> or one combined tarbal. I personally vote for one combined tarbal.
> 
> But this means we will be inflicting some pains on distro's because their
> libv4l packages will go away and be replaced by a new v4l-utils package.
> This is something distro's should be able to handle (it happens more
> often, and I
> know Fedora has procedures for this).
> 
> An alternative would be to name the repo and the tarbals libv4l, either
> is fine
> with me (although I'm one of the distro packagers who is going to feel
> the pain
> of a package rename and as such wouldn't mind using libv4l as name for the
> repo and the new tarbals).

I think that the better is to create one single tarball. The Makefile may 
have multiple makefile targets for the libraries and for utils. This would 
help distros to create different packages if they want to.

As you're the packager on Fedora, I think you should prepare it to make your
life easier on the distro side. This will probably help other distros too.

-- 

Cheers,
Mauro