Re: status of 2.6.7 ? (Was Re: Bug#256763: kernel-image-2.6.6-i386: not ready for sarge just yet)
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:43:20PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The /dev/psaux situation seems to be a big mess. I added /dev/psaux
> > upstream long ago so I wouldn't have to change my XF86Config for 2.4
> > vs 2.6. In the meantime X can have two different input devices
> > specified and won't fail if one of them doesn't work but gives strange
> > results when both work. And Debian has both on the default XF86Config.
>
> I don't think so, the current debian package 4.3.0 generated XF86Config
> has psaux as corepointer, and input/mice sending coreevents. If the usb
> mouse is missing, no big problem, but if the ps2 one is mising, X
> refuses to start.
Aiih, crap. Okay, the situation is more complex than I thought.
> > Currently the Debian kernel has another config option to have /dev/psaux
> > support in the kernel but disabled by default. I really hate that hack
> > and would just remove /dev/psaux from the Debian kernel as apparently
> > our X packages don't need that transition-aid.
>
> Yep, they need. I would suggest a solution as follows :
>
> 1) the XF86Config file is debconf managed : We query the database, inform
> the user with a low priority debconf question if it is set to psaux,
> and change it for him. This means a priority normal install will
> automatically make the change, so no user intervention is needed.
> Problem 1 : if you want to run 2.4 in parallel you are screwed, a
> solution would be to have the input/mice being the core pointer
> always, and the psaux sending core events.
> Problem 2 : kernel-package's scripts need to be debconfified. They
> need to be that anyway though in order to break debian-installer less.
>
> 2) The XF86Config file is not debconf managed : We parse the file in the
> post inst to check if psaux is the core pointer, and inform the user
> to fix it himself. After all, he is managing the file by hand and
> should know how to do this.
I don't quite like either of those. I'll try to take a look at the
X Code and/or talk to the X folks on whether we could fix X to autoprobe
for a corepointer.
Reply to: