[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: X problem ibook 2.2

> > You seem to be following this list :-) So doesn BenH, BTW.
> That is no excuse for a proper bug report. Such kind of things are much
> easier to miss or later forget if they are not properly filled.
> especially now that i am using the 2.4 benh tree, there should really be
> no reason not to fill such a bug report.

Bug reports make the maintainers' life easier (unless you happen to keep a
close tab on list gossip), I grant you that. But users are reluctant to
file bug reports - first of all, what package to file against, how do I
figure out the version, better ask on the list first. Oops, now that I've
reported this strange behavior to the list, why jump through more hoops
and file a bug?

> > What you _could_ do is write yet another FAQ explaining what 2.4 kernels
> Thanks for volunteering my time, why you don't go ahead, and write such
> a document so i could include it in the debian kernel package ?

Because I've got enough on my plate already? But nobody bothers to read
FAQs anymore, writing one would be a total waste of time.

> > are expected to do (support ancient hardware well, period), and which 2.6
> > versions to try instead.
> As there is no official debian 2.6 kernel yet (and probably wont be in

Strange, I just installed 2.6.3-1-k7 last week on my Athlon box.

> the near future if i have to loose time in writing FAQs and other such
> stuff you want me to), and as debian-installer doesn't support 2.6
> kernels anyway yet, the point is moot.

debian-installer not supporting 2.6 and X drm not working with 2.4 are
completely separate issues.

> For your information, my current priorities are getting debian-installer
> working on all supported powerpc hardware. We missed that with the
> beta3, so let's make sure this is not the case for beta4. Then getting a
> 2.6 kernel out, hopefully beta4 will include support for them already. I
> am also working on a ppc64 toolchain, so we can get ppc64 power3 and
> power4 kernels, see Benjamins remark about abandoning ppc32 support for
> those in the not so far future.

I recall he said that. Thanks for clarifying your priorities. Has anyone
else volunteered to start on ppc 2.6 kernel packages yet?


Reply to: