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

Re: Kernel Image with APM (Was: Things left to do for release.)

In article <[🔎] njxemqrekry.fsf_-_@lug.lanl.gov>, Neale Pickett <neale@lanl.gov> writes:
> Adam Di Carlo writes:
>> "Matthias" == Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
>>> even greater, if apm could be enabled in this kernel. Or doesn't
>>> this work on some laptops?

>> Matthias, why, why, why! do you keep asking for this.

>> Putting APM support in the stock kernels would *reduce* the number
>> of systems which can boot from the stock kernel.  It's an option,
>> it's not required, it causes problems for some, and it's not needed
>> for booting --

>> therefore!

>> it will never be part of the stock kernel.  You have to build your
>> own kernel if you want APM, that that's how it will *always* be on
>> x86.

> That's just wrong.

> Really.

No, it's right.  An APM kernel will never be the default kernel
because it prevents some machines from booting.  Objective fact.

> Requiring people to build their own kernel to get APM support is
> ludicrous if we're going to go to all the trouble to have things
> like a menu system and binary packages to make life easier on
> people.

> Is it really that hard to make a kernel image with APM support, and
> just distribute it seperately?  kernel-image-apm or something.  Not
> everyone has to download it, but it will save a lot of time for
> folks who use laptops.

> Maybe you didn't mean to write that last sentence :-)

No, I did.

There's nothing to stop you from uploading a new package, say,
kernel-image_X.X-apm-1 or what have you.  Priority extra.  But lets
not bother with this whole issue in the boot-floppies system itself.

.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>

Reply to: