Re: Kernel Image with APM (Was: Things left to do for release.)
In article <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>, Neale Pickett <email@example.com> writes:
> Adam Di Carlo writes:
>> "Matthias" == Matthias Klose <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 --
>> 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
> That's just wrong.
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
> 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/>