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 11:15:11PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.
I would rather fix it in the installed XF86Config file, so we have to
deal only one time with it, and be clear therefor after. Notice that the
above where not two alternatives, but you had to do both.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: