Current State of TVHeadend?

JP T

Hi,

TVHeadend is a great piece of software. But currently it's totally unclear what is going on behind the curtains.

So, could you please tell us the current state of TVHeadend?

What I found out until now:

* The last "news" (on the topic "Licensing") was 11 months ago

what exactly does the licensing issue mean regarding releases?

* The road-map shows only Version3.4; 3.6 is rather abandoned.
* On my OpenElec I've got running3.9.2427~gcde875e which is a huge step forward, but wasn't as easy to set up, as we are used to. At least for watching TV it's perfectly stable.
* The APT Repos:
latest beta is3.5.247~g098b7de for saucy
* btw, do we really need a separate "dist" for each release of Ubuntu? wouldn't it be ok to have "debian", "ubuntu" and "*-old" if a change is required between ubuntu/debian releases?

latest stable is3.4.28~geb79aee which at least nearly matches the road-map

* I upgraded via apt from stable to beta without much visible changes.

Do you encourage your users to build their own install from git? Then which version should we choose?

Thank you very much

Update:
I just realized, unstable provides 3.9.2662~ge4cdd3c for utopic, wow!
Could it be this page https://tvheadend.org/projects/tvheadend/wiki/AptRepository is outdated?

It tells:

> http://apt.tvheadend.org/unstable - this holds nightly (assuming something has changed) builds, they can vary from reasonably stable to downright awful, use at your own risk!

While it doesn't look like it was updated frequently:

... tvheadend_3.9.1879~g94ff39d~wheezy_amd64.deb 18-Oct-2014 00:03 3792424 tvheadend_3.9.249~gc7d0335~lucid.tar.gz 01-Dec-2013 01:01 14413920 tvheadend_3.9.2662~ge4cdd3c~lucid_amd64.deb 28-Mar-2015 01:05 4024194 ...

so are these the true beta builds? great!

c128 m

As a newcomer to TVHeadend (coming from ArgusTV) the doc does seem confusing...

On a clean Ubuntu 14.04 install (and I would guess the majority of folk will be using the latest Ubuntu, or derivative, LTS release) it's a little difficult to see from the official doc what release is "best" to use and from where.

I'm currently using the "stable" release from the APT repos (3.4.28~geb79aee~trusty) on a test installation, as I need to get all this working before thinking about making the move from ArgusTV. However, I was getting the impression that a lot of people use the "beta" release, together with a few pages/plugins that mention the requirement of a 3.9.* version (and so rule out using what's currently provided by "stable" in the APT repos).

I was just looking to change repos to "beta", initially ruling out "unstable", and then found this post.

From the above, it sounds like "unstable" from the APT repos is more like the maturity/stability of a "beta"?

Or, if I switch to "unstable", am I likely to pick-up a broken tvheadend in future updates (as you would expect from a traditional "unstable" delivery")?

If there is a bit of a mix-up in the APT repo documentation, it'd be great if that could be clarified; the doc there is the first thing you hit if you're attempting a standalone install on Ubuntu.

Added Later

Actually, now that I look at the "beta" contents, there's no "trusty" build in there. Does that indicate that there's no formal Beta for the next release of TVHeadend (and hasn't been for some time?) and that, really, there's just "stable" and "unstable" as APT sources for an install? "unstable" does look to have been updated recently, so that kind of suggests that is the case.

JP T

Hi,

I just had another look into the unstable repo. The 1879 and 249 versions remained the same, but the 2662 version was replaced by 2690 from yesterday. So this really seems to be a nightly build.

this has some drawbacks:
* since old versions are deleted instantly, you cannot easily switch back to an old version if the current does not work.
* you get updates on a daily basis.
I think I will stick to the beta repo. It's missing a lot of nice-to-have-features, but it works. :(

mpmc

JP T wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just had another look into the unstable repo. The 1879 and 249 versions remained the same, but the 2662 version was replaced by 2690 from yesterday. So this really seems to be a nightly build.
>
> this has some drawbacks:
> since old versions are deleted instantly, you cannot easily switch back to an old version if the current does not work. > you get updates on a daily basis.
>

> I think I will stick to the beta repo. It's missing a lot of nice-to-have-features, but it works. :(

This is why it's better to do your own builds at least then you have a backup when things go tits up. :)

JP T

Mark Clarkstone wrote:

>This is why it's better to do your own builds at least then you have a backup when things go tits up. :)

Thanks. This is what I was asking for. A statement from a pro.

Poul Kalff

It is indeed extremely difficult to use the website, because it is grotesquely outdated...as you say, the news are from last year and the roadmap seems abandoned. I thought for a long time that the whole project was dead, until I realized that it was actually quite active.... if you looked in the right places.

I cloned from git and it took me a long time to figure out how to set it up, but now it is running fine. It is a shame, though, that they have given up the webpage, because it is impossible to know what is going on and what the future plans are, if any. Maybe there simply isn't enough manpower to maintain and update the page?

mpmc

JP T wrote:
> Mark Clarkstone wrote:
> >This is why it's better to do your own builds at least then you have a backup when things go tits up. :) >

> Thanks. This is what I was asking for.A statement from a pro.

I'm anything but, I'm just a regular user like yourself & have just picked things up from others on IRC. :p

Poul Kalff wrote:
> It is indeed extremely difficult to use the website, because it is grotesquely outdated...as you say, the news are from last year and the roadmap seems abandoned. I thought for a long time that the whole project was dead, until I realized that it was actually quite active.... if you looked in the right places.
>

> I cloned from git and it took me a long time to figure out how to set it up, but now it is running fine. It is a shame, though, that they have given up the webpage, because it is impossible to know what is going on and what the future plans are, if any.Maybe there simply isn't enough manpower to maintain and update the page?

This is exactly the reason why many pages are outdated, I'm hoping to at least update the documentation at some point. If you feel like helping out you're more than welcome, I'm not sure if you have access to edit the wiki but you're more than welcome to mail or message me anything you'd like changed or included (Info on github @mpmc, same user on IRC).

c128 m

What's a reliable branch/commit to pick if you're looking for a stable-ish build with some of the key features that aren't, yet, in the "stable" repo?

Poul Kalff

Mark Clarkstone wrote:

> This is exactly the reason why many pages are outdated, I'm hoping to at least update the documentation at some point. If you feel like helping out you're more than welcome, I'm not sure if you have access to edit the wiki but you're more than welcome to mail or message me anything you'd like changed or included (Info on github @mpmc, same user on IRC).

Well, I'd love to help, but it is hard to help if you don't know anything. How would I update the timeline or write about future plans when I don't even know if there'll ever be new, stable version?
I could write a tutorial on setting things up, but I would hardly be the best choice for that either... I can get it to work, but I only know the bare essentials.
There should really be a group of people organized to maintain and develop the webpage/information and to communicate between the development and the community.... Without any link to the developing process, there is no point in writing anything on the webpage....

c128 m

Just to bump this a bit...

Seeing that, as JP T spotted, the unstable delivery from the APT repodoes seem to be being updated, and so is more akin to a nightly (as you'd might expect from the name):

* If you're an APT user: is there a beta (or future stable) being planned for delivery into the "beta" and "stable" APT repos that includes newer features?
* If you're building from source: what branch/commit is recommended to get something that isn't a "seat of the pants" developer delivery, but that does include the 3.9-ish features that most people seem to be using?
...apologies if this seems obvious, but I'm finding it a little vague coming to this as a new user.