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

Re: kernel

On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 19:41 +0100, website wrote:
> On Sunday 31 October 2004 19:10, Glyn Tebbutt wrote:
> > I tend to agree, why would the kernel developers go though such alot of
> > work just for graphics on boot, which not all users are going to use *ie
> > server users, what need is there?, esp on headless machines* The reality
> > is, any sort of splash is going to be more of a powerusers thing, as it
> > could cause headaches with stablity down the line. And after all we all
> > know debian is about stability. Also i dont think its likly that there
> > will be 2 different kernel tracks. 1 for normal debian kernels and
> > another for debsplash.
> > Im unsure to be honest.
> Yes it is true, but...
> Really debsplash is not an alone project, there are a lot of them that need a 
> kernel patch (like vesa-tng or some patches for enable hight ram size) that a 
> desktop user should have. This is not a standalone project. I started 
> debsplash as a project under debian-desktop, after i'll start some other 
> project to make debian good for desktop users.
Well personally i think debian is great for the desktop atm but for all
these additional patches etc the input from the kernel developers is
going to be needed, as it means more work for them. If we follow
gentoo's idea, we have a standard kernel with "genpatches" and then u
add in whatever u want. I still favor a package that drops the patches
into the /usr/src folder and then a dpkg-reconfigure asking weither you
want to patch your kernel.
> The kernel patch doesn't need userspace if it doesn't work, so the patch can 
> be inside the kernel without using it, without any problem.
> Just to know, there are some patches that are not included in the prestine 
> kernel but you can find in the debian kernel. Why?
> Really there are a set of patches that are included by kernel mainteiners, 
> probably in the kernel that you are using you have these, but you are not 
> using them.
> The question is another: is right to keep one kernel for server and desktop 
> user?
This is true, but imagine the kernel developers in debian. There is
millions of people using debian and a great ammount using the standard
kernel, if they use the fbsplash patch enabled and it doesnt work, there
going to moan to the kernel developers and increase bugs and bug
What your describing is changing the debian policy, this won't happen,
ever. Esp with the up and coming release of sarge. It just makes plain
sense. If you can get the patch included into the standard debian kernel
patches then fair enough, but the kernels will never be split into
2paths, desktop and server. It just makes plain sense.
| Glyn Tebbutt |                d3c3it-linux@ntlworld.com |
|--------------'      http://homepage.ntlworld.com/d3c3it |
| gpg-key: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/d3c3it/d3c3it.gpg |
|        Lisa, if you dont like your job you dont strike, |
|         just go in everyday and do it really half-assed | 
|                  Thats the American way. -Homer Simpson |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: