New feature: free type option exemple: vtunerc -t 8

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?

1. vtunerc.i686 -t x
where x is any numerical value corresponding to type definition.

So we can start vtunerd check the detected type and then use vtunerc.i686 -t x 
to be sure that vtunerc will search for the specified type (to avoid problem 
with -f S or -f s which search for different tuner type).

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

Will search for the specified type.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?

all

Please provide any additional information below.

Can you please describe in the wiki what tuner type numerical value is?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mebep...@gmail.com on 29 Jan 2012 at 5:29

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I'm still not sure if user really needs to see so low level.
Using symbolic names seems for me to be better approach.

I can agree that current s/S/S2/s2 variants can fool user.
But some investigation is needed to get better way.
BTW, all those s/S/s2/S2 variants was initially introduced because of different 
tuners and theirs possibility of transport S2 API calls.

My intention should be to remove them fully and stay with DVB-v5 api.
Older DVB stacks should be transcoded w/o needed of any administration.

Honza

Original comment by jpetrous on 14 Feb 2012 at 8:34

• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi,

Indeed this request is really low level, but the test I performed with vtunerc 
and vtunerd shows me that using lowercase/uppercase leads to different result 
(before I understood that s2 and S2 doesn't look for the same tuner type). 
That's why I was thinking to this low level parameter, we start vtunerd, we 
look which tuner type is detected and then we can force on the vtunerc the 
tuner type.

So indeed this parameter is more a debugging parameter that we can use for some 
troubleshooting and not to be used by end-user for daily use where indeed 
symbolic name is more easy.

Mebepi

Original comment by mebep...@gmail.com on 21 Feb 2012 at 10:17