Re: XFree86 update question
Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>
> Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> >Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> >
> >>but it's also mouse button 2/3 for many of us, as
> >>advice on how to make it so with the new input layer was posted numerous
> >>times to this list. Forcing one to either not use alt, or change mouse
> >>button emulation keys which one has used for years, does constitute
> >>breakage of backward compatibility.
> >>
> >>So, no more desktop switching in the console or X, and more importantly,
> >>no ctrl-alt-f1 from X to the console, and when the mouse freezes (if I
> >>try to log out and back in), I am dead, and must use my wife's Windoze
> >>PC to ssh in and kill X/gdm (which is not only embarassing, but messes
> >>up my GNOME session).
> >>
> >You have to sacrifice a key for each emulated mouse button in any case. If
> >that key has an important function now, you either have to change the
> >keymap or use another key for emulation. There's no way to avoid that.
> >
> Sure, but 3+ years of precedent with ADB keyboards should mean
> something, right?
I've never seen anything like a standard for mouse button emulation. Is there?
If not, it's a user customization which simply can't be handled 'correctly'
for everyone.
> Branden, I agree with you somewhat that alt should be alt; on the other
> hand, the Mac ADB keyboard layout is such that command is where alt
> would be on a PC keyboard, and alt is where those Windows keys would be,
> so for "position compatibility" between the two -- for users of both
> types of keyboards -- command really should be alt. I "wasn't there",
> but would guess this is why we've been doing things this way for so long.
I really think we should agree on one for default and make it consistent
across everything. But how are we going to determine which one should be
default?
One difficulty I see is that e.g. MOL seems to be using option for VT switch
with Linux keycodes; maybe there are already more such precedents which we'd
have to modify.
> I'm perfectly comfortable with doing things either way for fresh
> installs. But to deny people the choice of which way to do it on
> upgrade is uncool.
We don't.
IMHO the purpose of the kernel-image package and the default console-data
configuration is to make things work for the unexperienced user. An
experienced user has all the freedom to take a different route.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast
Reply to: