Re: frame-buffer on vanilla?

2002-04-08 Thread Matt Zimmerman 

On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 02:36:35PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:

 Anthony Towns wrote on Sat Apr 06, 2002 um 10:14:16PM:
  Eduard, _no_.
  
  What part of that don't you understand?
 
 The wtf no without any GOOD reasons part.

We want to actually make a release is good enough reason for me.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: frame-buffer on vanilla?

2002-04-06 Thread Herbert Xu 

Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Enabling VGA16 as a module will be done in the next release.

Actually it won't be since vga16 is only modularised in 2.4.
-- 
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email:  Herbert Xu ~{PmVHI~} [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: frame-buffer on vanilla?

2002-04-06 Thread Eduard Bloch 

#include hallo.h
Herbert Xu wrote on Sat Apr 06, 2002 um 08:53:49PM:

  Enabling VGA16 as a module will be done in the next release.
 
 Actually it won't be since vga16 is only modularised in 2.4.

Okay, let's make a summary (+ is pro, - is contra):

 - vanilla (2.2.20)
   + known as stable
   - no framebuffer, so no lang chooser 
 (adding requires changes in kernel and evtl. in bfs)
   - no support for modern hardware (harddisks controllers, network cards)
   - no support for modern filesystems
 - bf2.4
   + framebuffer, lang-chosser possible
   +/- relatively stable, probably less stable as 2.2.x if you use new features
 - compact
   + framebuffer, lang-chosser possible
   + (see vanilla)
   -- (see vanilla)
   - too few drivers for a default install, not even sound cards
 - idepci (2.2.20)
   ++--- (see compact)
   - almost limited to IDE and PCI stuff, but more stable on such
 machines. Best/Only useable as fallback option for seldom broken
 hardware, IMHO.

Change to bf2.4 on the first CD requires a swap of few bytes in
debian-cd, which needs a new release anyhow.

These are not real arguments, but a simple calculation. Not using bf2.4
on the first CD (*) is a shame.

(*) I do not say default. Default implies the best working choice
for most people, which is not true if you have (in useability) equal
options.

Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
-- 
weasel for i in *; do if ( cat $i | grep -q hallo ); then echo $i; fi; done
[einen Tag später]
-:- Topic (#debian.de): changed by _shorty_: Award fuer useless use of cat an
 Weasel verliehen. :)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: frame-buffer on vanilla?

2002-04-06 Thread Eduard Bloch 

#include hallo.h
Anthony Towns wrote on Sat Apr 06, 2002 um 10:14:16PM:
 On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 02:08:25PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
   Actually it won't be since vga16 is only modularised in 2.4.
  Okay, let's make a summary (+ is pro, - is contra):
 
 Eduard, _no_.
 
 What part of that don't you understand?

The wtf no without any GOOD reasons part.

Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
-- 
Es kann aeusserst gefaehrlich sein, etwas ohne ausreichende
Vorbereitung aus der Sicht eines anderen Menschen zu betrachten.
=== Douglas Adams / Einmal Rupert und zurueck ===


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

frame-buffer on vanilla? (was: Re: 2.4 kernel as default boot kernel on CD #1 ??)

2002-04-05 Thread David Kimdon 

Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:17:57AM +0200 wrote:
 On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 04:06:19AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
 cd1: idepci; cd2 scsi; cd3: bf2.4; cd4: vanilla
   I got a second, any opposed?
  After considering this, I'm opposed.
  If the decision is that the default boot floppies for woody i386 are
  2.2 ones (that don't do languages properly), I don't see that it is
  within the aegis of debian-cd to make a unilateral decision to
  override that for the CDs.
 
 Note that the proposal was to use idepci by default, not bf2.4. The only
 change (besides the ide patches, and maybe something else) is that
 idepci has language chooser enabled.

Another big change that I had not considered is vanilla has many more
drivers as modules than idepci.  Hardware such as sound cards are not
supported in idepci.  In my eyes that kills the idea, though I really
wanted to see the language chooser . . . all 18 languages . . .  on
the first CD.  Is enabling frame-buffer an option on the vanilla
flavor?  (Herbert, I cc'd you to get your opinion on that, I don't
know all that is involved.)

Thanks,

David


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: frame-buffer on vanilla? (was: Re: 2.4 kernel as default boot kernel on CD #1 ??)

2002-04-05 Thread Herbert Xu 

On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 10:31:25PM -0800, David Kimdon wrote:

 the first CD.  Is enabling frame-buffer an option on the vanilla
 flavor?  (Herbert, I cc'd you to get your opinion on that, I don't

Enabling VGA16 as a module will be done in the next release.
-- 
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email:  Herbert Xu ~{PmVHI~} [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]