Gerd Knorr "kraxel@..." wrote:
> Ok, sounds reasonable. Any concrete plans for the next release
No, it will be ready once it's ready.
> I certainly will use something newer than the prehistoric 0.6.6
> version for the next SuSE release. I'd prefeare a official 0.7
> release, but failing that I'll rather go with a cvs snapshot than with
I think any CVS snapshot should be at least as stable as 0.6.6.
> I also have some wishlist items from a packagers point of view:
> (1) please split userspace and kernel stuff into separate packages.
> That would also allow to have multiple kernel packages, one
> 2.2/2.4 and one 2.6 (with all old stuff dropped) for example.
Ok, but not very likely to happen anytime soon.
> (2) compile time options are evil. The userspace code should just
> compile all possible drivers into the lircd / ... binaries.
Compare other thread.
> kernel modules should use insmod options instead of CONFIG_*
> variables for configuration.
Well, most compile-time settings only should set some default values,
which are also run-time configurable. If you have something special in
mind, drop me a note or even better send patches.
>> Anyway, there is no big difference in the effort spent to support 2.2,
>> 2.4 and 2.6 compared with just 2.4 and 2.6.
> Yup, also dropping 2.4 support would simplify things even more ;)
> Unfortunately this isn't possible right now. 2.6 has some very nice
> new features: tasklets for example. Using them would basically
> obsolete the lirc_dev kernel thread helper module.
lirc_dev should do the file operations and buffer handling, so other
drivers don't have to reimplement them each time.