[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [herbert@gondor.apana.org.au: Re: Bug#161931: kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for console]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:26:52AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> See below. I claim Herbert Xu to decide not reasonable in this issue,
> working against ?4 of the social contract. Please decide wise and force
> him to change the current situation.
> See also
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=161931&repeatmerged=yes
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=134220&repeatmerged=yes
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=104101&repeatmerged=yes
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=123987&repeatmerged=yes

Here's what I get, technically, from reading those bug reports:

104101 -- debian kernels are being compiled without FB_VESA so vesa
support doesn't work on debian kernels.

123987 -- vesa support breaks on some machines

134220 -- nothing new

161931 -- Gerd Knorr <kraxel@debian.org> is the vesafb author, and is
reported as saying that vesafb doesn't hurt on any machines.

Using google, I can't find any reports of vesa support breaking under
current linux kernels.


Proposal 1: we believe Herbert Xu and agree that vesa support not be
included in debian kernels.

Proposal 2: we believe that vesa support is both useful and harmless
and ask Herbert Xu to include it in debian kernels.

I think proposal 1 is a bad idea unless we find some significant evidence
to the contrary.

What do the rest of you think?  Does anyone have more information on this
subject?  Perhaps we should invite Herbert Xu and/or Gerd Knorr to comment
on this subject?  Are there any good reasons for accepting proposal 1?



Reply to: