[mythtv-users] Re: Has anyone setup v4l2 succesfully?

[Jarod C. Wilson]

On Thursday, Colin Armstrong wrote:

> All I can say is that the ATrpms kernel did not work very well for me.
> Here were my two problems with it; one, after I used apt-get to install
> the ATrpms kernel, I could not use apt-get any more because of it 
> saying
> that it was missing two dependencies, one of which was a higher apt-get
> version. I checked apt-get itself and it was a higher version than what
> it said it wanted. I even told apt-get to run a dependency check and
> update anything that it found to be old, but apt-get still did not 
> work.

None of that has anything to do with the actual functionality of the 
kernel though. For some reason, apt broke. apt not working does NOT 
equal a kernel problem.

> After I gave up on apt-get, I still tried to use the ATrpms kernel, but
> I had more trouble. This time it was with the .config file. I found 
> this
> out because after I gave up on apt-get, I tried to compile and install
> some of the software that apt-get would not install, manually. I could
> not compile this software because I got errors where it could not find
> the .config file.

Also not a problem with the functionality of the kernel. The .config 
files were exactly where they were supposed to be. You needed to put 
the proper one into /usr/src/linux-2.4 yourself. That is exactly the 
way it always works.

> I don't think it was me that made the ATrpms kernel not work because
> apt-get downloaded and installed it all for me, but I guess I still
> could have done something wrong. If it works for other people, great; 
> it
> just did not work for me.

But from what I can tell, none of your problems were actually the 
kernel. apt broke somehow, but that isn't a kernel problem. Did you try 
rebooting off a non-ATrpms kernel at that point and see if apt was 
okay? I'd suggest doing that, because I think you'd find apt still 
broken at that point, even when using a stock Red Hat kernel.

> To answer your question about which patch caused all of the problems 
> for
> me; my answer is all I know is that it was not the V4L2 patch, because 
> I
> patched a kernel with that and it worked fine. It easily could have 
> been
> one of the already installed Red Hat patches in the kernel. The Red Hat
> kernel may have just not gotten along very well with my stock 2.4.21
> kernel that I was using. I don't know.

It doesn't sound like a single one of your problems had anything to do 
with the Red Hat kernels, or the ATrpms kernels.

> I do think that it is very good that these are available, because if
> they work for even just a few people, then it was worthwile to make
> them. The kernel just did not work for me.

 From everything I gather, there wasn't ever anything wrong with the 
kernel. For some reason, apt broke, period. Chances are, that was 
repairable damage, too... But anyhow, we're getting WAY off-topic for 
this mailing list.

In short, the ATrpms kernels are a very good option for most people 
building MythTV boxes on Red Hat Linux 9. <--steering this back 
on-topic

--Jarod

-- 
Jarod C. Wilson, RHCE

Got a question? Read this first...
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

MythTV, Red Hat Linux 9 & ATrpms documentation:
http://pvrhw.goldfish.org/tiki-page.php?pageName=rh9pvr250