Re: Switching to 2.4.12 found ADB keycodes (long)
On Sun, 2001-11-25 at 06:03, Chris Tillman wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 06:03:28PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > Chris, a very good summary, thanks! A few minor comments:
> > On Sat, 2001-11-24 at 16:16, Chris Tillman wrote:
> > > Here's what happened: to pull powerpc into the linux mainstream and
> > > eliminate present and future conflicts, woody's console-data package
> > > was changed to install linux keycode maps instead of ADB keycode maps
> > > (which used to be the norm for powerpc kernels).
> > The ADB keymaps are still there for those who know what they're doing,
> > but only those for Linux keycodes are presented in the arch list and
> > officially supported.
> was changed to present linux keycode maps for installation instead of
> ADB keycode maps (which used to be the norm for powerpc kernels). The
> ADB maps are no longer officially supported.
> > > The installation system's kernel was changed to follow that path, so
> > > the new installation kernel uses linux keycodes, not ADB
> > > keycodes. That is a permanent change; a kernel compiled without
> > > support for ADB keycodes is unable to use ADB keymaps. All kernels are
> > > able to use linux keycodes - it's 'native'.
> > That's not entirely correct. Linux keycodes are a feature of the 'New
> > Input Layer', which is set to become the standard for all input devices
> > on all architectures during 2.5, but so far it's only used for some
> > devices on some architectures.
> support for ADB keycodes is unable to use ADB keymaps. Linux keycodes
> are a feature of the 'New Input Layer', which is set to become the
> standard for all input devices on all architectures during the 2.5
> kernel version cycle.
Sounds good to me. :)
> > I have a few ideas to further reduce the potential for breakage:
> > - include keyboard_sends_linux_keycodes=1 in default and example yaboot
> > configs, in particular the one generated during installation
> Sounds like a good idea for boot-floppies, maybe a commented out one
> upstream, since it could break existing setups. 'Course, they
> shouldn't be using a default installation on an upgrade...
We're only talking about Debian here. We can't enforce our policy on
everybody (unfortunately ;).
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast