Channels being forgotten

No. I mean tunefix. It seems that it was tunefix that was possibly screwing things up in the first place (although I don't think we have established that beyond doubt).
You missed the
(with a possibly occasional tweak)
Click to expand...
from your quote, which I think covers your comment about tunefix-update doesn't it?
The original problem was loosing channels and having to retune, not because broadcaster had moved stuff which is what tunefix-update is for I believe.
 
The original problem was caused because somebody had apparently misguidedly re-configured tunefix, after installation, to set an invalid region name (Meridian). This would cause everything apart from channels on muxes COM7 and COM8 to be deleted, which is exactly what happened.
 
Shouldn't the user be given a list of valid regions to chose from?, rather than be allowed to say region = any-old-crap
 
@BH.
ATM the OP/his mum has to retune the TV frequently because it 'forgets channels' which certain members are blaming on an incorrect setting in tunefix. (but see post #26). If tunefix were to be set up correctly, once the box has been tuned, there would be no need to tune the box again on a regular basis (as at present) because it wouldn't 'forget the channels'.
There will, however, be comparatively infrequent changes made by the broadcaster (LCN swaps etc.), which tunefix-update will look after thank you kindly sir.

If I delete (say) the BBCB mux, will tunefix-update fix it for me when I next reboot the box? I think not. I will have to retune the mux, either by an auto-scan or just by scannin that mux frequency (making sure that I have set reception type to T2).
 
Trev said:
ATM the OP/his mum has to retune the TV frequently because it 'forgets channels' which certain members are blaming on an incorrect setting in tunefix. (but see post #26). If tunefix were to be set up correctly, once the box has been tuned, there would be no need to tune the box again on a regular basis (as at present) because it wouldn't 'forget the channels'.
Click to expand...
If I've understood the OPs problem correctly it seems as though the loss of channels is noticed on startup. Wouldn't that suggest that BHs point in post #3 is most likely. The NVRAM has become volatile. Unless the packages being discussed can restore lost tuned data at startup then the arguments about tunefix/tunefix-update are irrelevant. The OP asked for a simple reliable operation (post #13). I'm wondering whether the only two solutions available are: 1) leave the Humax switched on (might involve disabling the on/off button on the remote!); or 2) Buy a new or second-hand Humax as a replacement.
 
Not at all. It seems to me that tunefix was deleting whole multiplexes on reboot, due to configuration. The easy way to disprove this hypothesis is to uninstall tunefix and see if it still happens. However, the OP has reconfigured tunefix and the problem ceased, so that is also pretty conclusive.

There seems to be a lot of confusion going on: tunefix is not capable of retuning, what it does is delete unwanted services and rearrange wanted services according to user specification. Restoring services accidentally deleted by tunefix will require a retune. tunefix-update incorporates advertised service changes and additions into the tuning database, thus avoiding having to retune - which is why I said tunefix-update avoids retunes, not tunefix (which will cause a user to have to retune if the configuration is wrong, not prevent retunes per se).
 
Trev said:
If I delete (say) the BBCB mux, will tunefix-update fix it for me when I next reboot the box? I think not.
Click to expand...
You are correct. It won't (and can't, not least because it doesn't know what transmitter you are tuned to).
EEPhil said:
Wouldn't that suggest that BHs point in post #3 is most likely.
Click to expand...
I think the opposite.
Black Hole said:
Restoring services accidentally deleted by tunefix will require a retune.
Click to expand...
Practically speaking, you are correct but, technically speaking, it is possible to re-add services to muxes which still have at least one service remaining. This is how tunefix-update can add new services on existing muxes.
 
Black Hole said:
There seems to be a lot of confusion going on: tunefix is not capable of retuning, what it does is delete unwanted services and rearrange wanted services according to user specification.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to me? If so I give in. You win. You are right. I am wrong.
 
Black Hole said:
Theoretically possible but not currently implemented, therefore irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Of course it's implemented, therefore not irrelevant at all.
I'll repeat again this bit... "This is how tunefix-update can add new services on existing muxes."
And for the avoidance of any more doubt, tunefix-update uses tunefix to do its work.
 
Oh god...

Please explain how we, the users, can use tunefix to replace a service accidentally removed (or deliberately and then change our minds) so that we do not have to rescan the relevant mux. That would be quite handy.

When I said "not implemented", obviously "not available via the user interface" counts.
 
Ah I see where you are coming from BH.
So is the answer to the question
Q "How do I reinstate Babestation to LCN 674 that I had in my 'remove' section of tunefix without retuning?"
A "You can't" (unless you are a black belt with the innermost workings of the CF)
 
Black Hole said:
Please explain how we, the users, can use tunefix to replace a service accidentally removed (or deliberately and then change our minds) so that we do not have to rescan the relevant mux. That would be quite handy.
Click to expand...

That would require the 'Manual Intervention Interface'.
I think it's part of the Premium Package add-on (which doesn't yet exist afaik) :)
 
prpr said:
That was written before "Com78 National" came in to existence and it is now invalid. I will see if I can think up the appropriate SQL query to fix it.
Click to expand...
I have, but I need to do some more extensive testing on it, as the consequences of getting this stuff wrong tend to upset people.
Black Hole said:
When I said "not implemented", obviously "not available via the user interface" counts.
Click to expand...
"not implemented" is not the same as "not documented" or "available to users".
Unless you know exactly what you are doing and what the rules are, the process is not straightforward. I don't want to try and support an endless stream of queries from people's wrong attempts at this.
MikeSh said:
I think it's part of the Premium Package add-on (which doesn't yet exist afaik) :)
Click to expand...
Now there's a thought I hadn't had!
 
I thought that was the purpose of beta testing. To let the idiots loose on it to break the things that you are not stupid enough to think of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top