Re: gpm in standard or not [was: Re: interesting times installing 2.4.17 in Woody...]
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 06:43:17PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > I haven't seen a single system where gpm caused any damage. Sure, sometimes
> > the mouse type options were confusing when it came to my no-name mouses and
> > I had to fiddle with it, but I can say the same for a lot of the other
> > standard packages.
>
> It seems many people are catching on to this part. Let me be clear -- this
> is merely a Works For Me(TM) argument. I am not saying there don't exist
> systems where gpm caused any damage.
On a SMP system we bought recently, booting SMP with gpm the console
would not work. Booting without SMP, the console would work and gpm
was fine. The kernels were identical except for that config flag.
I've also had it lock up the console when a serial mouse is not present
(god knows why.) Unfortunately it has to be one of the first things I
purge on installing a system (as well as evlis-tiny ;)
It seems from the responses that enough people have had problems for
it to be called 'erratic' - it probably shouldn't be in the Standard
system.
--
Grahame Bowland Email: grahame@ucs.uwa.edu.au
University Communications Services Phone: +61 8 9380 1175
The University of Western Australia Fax: +61 8 9380 1109
CRICOS: 00126G
Reply to: