Re: [Yaird-devel] Bug#345067: ide-geenric inclusion even if it doesn't exist.
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:51:52AM +0000, Horms wrote:
> Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> wrote:
> > [-- text/plain, encoding quoted-printable, charset: us-ascii, 59 lines --]
> >
> > This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said:
> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:11:44PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:20:34 +0100
> >> > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > i, wearing my powerpc debian kernel maintainer hat, know that
> >> > > it is not needed on powerpc.
> >> >
> >> > This indicates that you are talking about a single kernel build - the
> >> > one provided by the kernel team, not powerpc kernels in general.
> >>
> >> Jonas, can you please explain me how you can come to the conclusion that
> >> ide-generic is *NEEDED* on powerpc, if there is at least one kernel config
> >> which does not have it and works perfectly ?
> >>
> >> I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, and failing to even try
> >> to understand the issue at hand ?
> >
> > Oh look, why are you still fighting about this? It seems to me that the
> > real problem is that the via module doesn't declare a relation to
> > ide-generic in situations where it actually does need it. Why not fix
> > the kernel, so that yaird doesn't have to bend over backwards? Not that
> > I really care either way, but it does seem to me to be cleaner to fix
> > the underlying problem rather than adding increasingly nonsensical
> > special case code somewhere else to work around it.
>
> Can someone cook up a patch for this and send it upstream and/or here?
I guess this means someone needs to investigate it with the hardware that is
broken in the first place. Nobody seemed interested in doing so, and i don't
have broken via-ide x86 hardware myself.
Now, can we please get the borken hack in yaird be backed out or at least
disabled on powerpc as my patch proposed ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: