LinHES Forums
http://forum.linhes.org/

Most recent version of DVB_fixer.sh?
http://forum.linhes.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6067		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  ceenvee703 [ Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:03 am ]
Post subject:  Most recent version of DVB_fixer.sh?
How can I tell if I have the most recent version on my backend? Or is it somewhere locally that I can download it? I may need to clear out my channel info and have a funny feeling I have an early version of it that may not be complete.
Author:  cesman [ Fri Sep 16, 2005 10:49 am ]
Post subject: 
If you have R5A16, you have the latest. If you update to 0.18.2svn, you won't need the fixer!
Author:  linuxgeek [ Sat Sep 17, 2005 10:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
cesman wrote:
If you have R5A16, you have the latest. If you update to 0.18.2svn, you won't need the fixer!


Why not?
Author:  tjc [ Sun Sep 18, 2005 11:39 am ]
Post subject: 
Just a guess , but most likley because the same type of support is now done by the built in scanner. It'll be interesting to see how it deals with the botched IDs from some of the stations we've got in the Boston area...
Author:  Human [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
tjc wrote:
Just a guess , but most likley because the same type of support is now done by the built in scanner. It'll be interesting to see how it deals with the botched IDs from some of the stations we've got in the Boston area...

If 0.18.2svn's channel scan doesn't help you, let me know, and I'll see what I can do. For my local channels, I haven't needed DVB_fixer.sh in 0.18.2svn, so hopefully you won't need it either.
Author:  tjc [ Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
I may have to post the OTA embedded name data next time, as an example of just how dumb some of these folks are. Bags of hammer and boxes of rock don't begin to cover it. ;-)
Author:  Human [ Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:17 am ]
Post subject: 
tjc wrote:
I may have to post the OTA embedded name data next time, as an example of just how dumb some of these folks are. Bags of hammer and boxes of rock don't begin to cover it. ;-)

Heh. In my area, one channel gave me different results depending on when I scanned it in. One time it was "Adding WHTM-HD as 10#0" (wording not exact) and the next it was "Adding WHTM-HD as 271" (which was what it should have been). Signal strength did not appear to be a factor.

There are also problems with some stations transmitting garbage at the borders of the image. I guess they're still thinking in analog mode, where there'd always be some overscan. Our local PBS station is _perfect_ though, so it's probably just some cleanup the other channels will do as more people watch their HD feeds and complain.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/