Instead of alevt-dvb.patch use alevt-dvb-demux.patch from http://www.baycom.org/~tom/alevt-dvb-demux.patch Using alevt-dvb.patch requires alevt to read from the dvr0 device to receive tele text. Unfortunately, this is impossible while watching TV. With alevt-dvb-demux.patch alevt uses the demux device simultaneously while grabbing TV from the dvr0 device.
Uh, this is *huge* patch. Please, request such things upstream, distributions are not a proper place for this.
(In reply to comment #1) > Uh, this is *huge* patch. Please, request such things upstream, distributions > are not a proper place for this. > If this is not the right place to ask for usage of a patch, why are you already using alevt-dvb.patch (http://www.baycom.org/~tom/alevt-dvb.patch) in the alevt package from the same source as the requested patch (http://www.baycom.org/~tom/alevt-dvb-demux.patch) By the way, this one is even slightly bigger than the requested patch.
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Uh, this is *huge* patch. Please, request such things upstream, distributions > > are not a proper place for this. > > > > If this is not the right place to ask for usage of a patch, why are you already > using alevt-dvb.patch (http://www.baycom.org/~tom/alevt-dvb.patch) in the alevt > package from the same source as the requested patch > (http://www.baycom.org/~tom/alevt-dvb-demux.patch) By the way, this one is even > slightly bigger than the requested patch. > The largest patch we have is 1.4k. This one is 52k. Big changes ... should go upstream. :)
Well, my comment *from more than a year ago* was referring to the 1.6.1-r* ebuilds. All of these use the patch from www.baycom.org/... And I'm really not sure whether my request was understood correctly as it was referring to people using alevt with a DVB-receiver (like me). Of course, *now* with today's ebuild from 2009 you don't use the above mentioned patch anymore. From my opinion, there was a good reason that alevt-1.6.2 was not put into portage (at least not unmasked): on the one hand there is no dvb-support (while there was by patching 1.6.1) on the other hand there're no major fixes or upgrades in 1.6.2: (referring to 1.6.2 in http://www.goron.de/~froese/alevt/changes): ... This is a build-time update to conform to newer compilers and system environments. If you have a running AleVT there's no reason to update. The only real fix is in the html-exporter which was producing broken html (missing double-quotes). So the effect of putting this ebuild into portage is that you silently removed dvb-support from alevt with no substantial gain in stability or functionality.
Well, we don't have anyone maintaing / testing DVB apps, so that's the reason for the delay. I don't see how I've removed anything since I didn't remove any ebuilds, either. So .. what would you recommend?
Well, certainly you didn't actually remove anything. But for most dvb-users alevt simply won't work after installing the new ebuild. I really understand that most of the times it is the best choice to stick with the latest stable version of a software. You (i.e. the gentoo package maintainers) chose previously to add some important funtionality by some third-party patch that probably a bunch of people rely on. Unfortunately, the software has been upgraded but the patch wasn't adapted. My suggestion is to mask alevt-1.6.2 until somebody will have patched the dvb-patch for 1.6.2. I find alevt most useful but, honestly, I doubt that it is still heavily maintained and that reporting the issue to upstream will result in an improved version soon. At the very least, please add a hint to ChangeLog about this issue so 1.6.2 dvb users will be informed to downgrade. At best, make an ebuild alevt-1.6.1-r5 that uses the patch I pointed out in my initial posting for the reason stated there with 1.6.1. ;)
Sorry, I didn't realize that the new ebuild is already masked. So my last posting was kind of pointless.
it seems this applies to an older version
