On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 08:32:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that Christoph did close this bug report without even bothering
to discuss this, thus taking the decision from the team and into his own
hands. Christoph, could you please justify your actions here ? They may
be right and all,
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 03:28:21AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
He didn't close it; he tagged in +wontfix. He mentioned his reasoning
(the fact that there's userspace graphical boot screens), but it's not
apparent due to the way the BTS works. FYI, Christoph, people will
usually email
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 04:25:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, if you would go out of your x86-centric world, you would know that
half if not more of the architectures debian support _DON'T_ have text
console. You mean we should provide a null modem cable and a laptop with
every debian CD
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:33:23PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 09:37:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I probably don't disagree, i only disagree with the dictatorial method,
while this was supposed to be a team.
If a team needs to discuss every little bit of work
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:36:06PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:37:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Two: The official Debian kernel is modularized to a great extent. On
i386, all framebuffer drivers and framebuffer console support itself
This is bullshit. I
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:38:14PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 04:25:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, if you would go out of your x86-centric world, you would know that
half if not more of the architectures debian support _DON'T_ have text
console. You mean
Who talked about modularizing all fb drivers for all architectures. And
btw, many architectures have text-only firmware-based consoles that
allow early debugging (even long before any fb driver can take over
control)
And many powerpc subarches don't have, nor does m68k or sparc.
So
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:20:56PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Who talked about modularizing all fb drivers for all architectures. And
btw, many architectures have text-only firmware-based consoles that
allow early debugging (even long before any fb driver can take over
control)
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:17:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, you don't like the patch, and Herbert didn't, now, the question is
what about the functionality ? Do you also discard it because it is not
the one true way of kernel booting, or do you find it acceptable ?
As it's stated in the
Hi,
Bluefuture writes:
The low techie people I came across think that anything beside
graphics are old computing or recovery broken things... so a
bootsplash help they to trust the operating system (the computer
as whole object from their point of view).
I'm totally agree on this
Alle 09:54, giovedì 01 luglio 2004, Jens Schmalzing ha scritto:
Psychology aside, there are two technical reasons for not integrating
this kernel patch.
One: It works exclusively with vesafb and this sucks. But let's
assume for the moment that we all have nothing but i386 hardware and
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 09:54:48AM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
Hi,
Bluefuture writes:
The low techie people I came across think that anything beside
graphics are old computing or recovery broken things... so a
bootsplash help they to trust the operating system (the computer
as
#include hallo.h
* Andrew Pollock [Wed, Jun 30 2004, 09:17:59AM]:
Ah yes. Herbert had quite strong views on what should and shouldn't be done
in the kernel, despite the fact that things existed in the kernel here and
now, and to implement the equivalent in userspace would require someone to
Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
This is bullshit. I don't think it is a great idea to modularize the
kernel, and thus lose all the early debugging. We are going to hurt us if
we go that way, especially as the boot process is now more fragile as it
used to be, thanks to the initrd thingy,
The
Hi,
I'd like to know how a modularized PCI subsystem can be loaded _AFTER_
a PCI dependent FB driver.
Well, duh, obviously you can't do that. :-/
What then if the PCI buswalk kills the kernel?
You write these parts of the kernel defensively so that this doesn't
happen, and/or you test it
---
Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
This is bullshit. I don't think it is a great idea to modularize
the
kernel, and thus lose all the early debugging. We are going to
hurt us if
we go that way, especially as the boot process is now more fragile
as it
used to be, thanks to the
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 03:50:28PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to know how a modularized PCI subsystem can be loaded _AFTER_
a PCI dependent FB driver.
Well, duh, obviously you can't do that. :-/
What then if the PCI buswalk kills the kernel?
You write these parts
---
Hi,
I'd like to know how a modularized PCI subsystem can be loaded
_AFTER_
a PCI dependent FB driver.
Well, duh, obviously you can't do that. :-/
Heh, I has a feeling that wouldn't be that easy ;)
What then if the PCI buswalk kills the kernel?
You write these
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 09:17:59AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:54:23PM +0200, Bluefuture wrote:
I want to open a discussion about this bug on the debian-kernel
mailing list:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=253224
Ah yes. Herbert had quite
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 03:28:21AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:32:43 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
Notice that Christoph did close this bug report without even bothering
to discuss this, thus taking the decision from the team and into his own
hands. Christoph,
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 12:13:41PM +0200, Marco Amadori wrote:
Alle 02:01, mercoledì 30 giugno 2004, Andres Salomon ha scritto:
I want to open a discussion about this bug on the debian-kernel
mailing list:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=253224
Heh, when I first
The low techie people I came across think that anything beside
graphics are
old computing or recovery broken things... so a bootsplash help they to
trust the operating system (the computer as whole object from their point of
view).
I'm totally agree on this point. In my experience of
The low techie people I came across think that anything beside
graphics are
old computing or recovery broken things... so a bootsplash help they to
trust the operating system (the computer as whole object from their point of
view).
I'm totally agree on this point. In my experience of
I want to open a discussion about this bug on the debian-kernel
mailing list:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=253224
Cheers,
Stefano
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:54:23PM +0200, Bluefuture wrote:
I want to open a discussion about this bug on the debian-kernel
mailing list:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=253224
Ah yes. Herbert had quite strong views on what should and shouldn't be done
in the kernel,
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:17:59 +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:54:23PM +0200, Bluefuture wrote:
I want to open a discussion about this bug on the debian-kernel
mailing list:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=253224
[...]
I personally think having the
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:01:42 -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:17:59 +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:54:23PM +0200, Bluefuture wrote:
I want to open a discussion about this bug on the debian-kernel
mailing list:
27 matches
Mail list logo
