[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]

>>">" == Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:

 Raul> Perhaps I've missed something?
 >> On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 10:20:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> Did you get Herberts mail detailing his objections to the
 >> inclusion of vesafb?

 >> I made an earlier comment on that discussion thread:

 >>   "This is an argument for the kernel architects.  We're not kernel
 >>    architects, however -- we're distributors.

 >>   "The kernel architects, for whatever reason, have decreed that if you
 >>    want both vesafb and fbcon in a current version of Linux, you have to
 >>    have them both compiled in statically.

	You are making an assumption that thre is intelligent desing
 -- thet there is a coherent body of kernel architects, that encompass
    all subsystems and modules.

	There is not.

	Decisions in kernel space are decentralized, and no one has
 made a determination and passed a decree that vesafb and fbcon must
 both be sompiled in into the kernel, and that is good.

	The consensus on the lkml, and elsewhere is that modularity of
 kernels is good; and vesafb is not modular (to be fair, it may not be
 possible to modularize vesafb because of technical reasons [something
 to do with it needs to be in place before the kernel goes into
 protected mode]). 

	I must confess that I can't imagine that the set of people who
 a) Can't live with text mode
 b) Can't use X
 c) Won't compile their own custome kernel
   can be very large at all.

	It all boils down to a non technical judgement call -- whether
 the worth function of modularity offsets the utility of a precompiled
 kernel containing vesafb for what maybe an infinitesimal audience;
 and whether we can come up with a convincing enough case to override
 a maintainer.

	I reiterate, overriding the maintainer must never be trivially
 undertaken, and ought not to be done on guess work, or without a
 strongly defensible case. None of which I see at the moment.

 Don't be irreplaceable.  If you can't be replaced, you can't be
 promoted. --anonymous
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: