On Tuesday 10 November 2009 15:58:40 Nate Bargmann wrote: > * Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2009 Nov 10 15:41 -0600]: > > On Tuesday 10 November 2009 15:27:35 Nate Bargmann wrote: > > > Some time ago > > > after discussion on this list I filed a Debian bug wishlist report > > > asking for a Debian kernel with the desktop support enabled. It was > > > closed as "will not fix". > > > > Yes, pending a formal vote, firmware without source code will not be > > added back to the Debian kernel, and such firmware will be removed as > > bugs are filed against it. > > Apples and oranges. I did not ask for firmware, in fact this was > before certain firmware was placed into non-free as I recall. > Searching I came up with: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=375845 > > as the report. The actual closing report was that activating PREEMPT > support triggered a lot of bugs but the possibility was left open of > eventually enabling PREEMPT support. There are a couple of lines with > PREEMPT in them that differ between the Sid kernel and the Kubuntu > kernel here most that Debian sets CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y and Kubuntu > sets CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y (they are consectutive lines in the > config files). I stand corrected. CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y is what I used for kernels when I complied them myself under Gentoo. It seems odd that Debian would choose to use CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y instead, but if it was buggy I can understand. (I did not see any issues under Gentoo I was willing to blame on that setting.) I disagree with boiling this setting down to the phrase "desktop support", but enabling preemption of the kernel does generally make for a more pleasant desktop experience. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. email@example.com ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.