Re: [FIX]: ultra45 boot failing...
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 12:28:18AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > So you're saying that X working is more important than machines
> > > actually booting at all? These priorities are wrong.
> >
> > When N (where N > 0) users complain about dead X, and 0 users complain
> > about not being able to boot, the priorities are fairly clear...
>
> If their machine won't even boot into the installer they are unlikely
> to even make a report.
Nobody (before you that is) reported an installer failure on these machines,
so the situation is still clear from our point of view - it's certainly not
perfect or even good, but the system as a whole depends on user input.
> Furthermore the point remains that you put a change into the kernel
> that I would never have advocated had you presented the bug to
> me. I would have suggested ways to fix the X server and even
> worked on the patch.
>
> But since nobody contacted me about this, a broken change went into
> the kernel instead.
That is true, someone should have contacted you (sparclinux list at least)
about that.
But then, it would have been completely your prerogative to respond to that
simply by saying - DTRT and go upgrade X, patching old X is a waste of my
time, and I guess nobody wanted to risk hearing that answer? :)
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: