On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 17:00 +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Thursday 07 August 2008, Ian Campbell wrote: > > The patch below, when combined with an update to 2.6.26 (required for > > Xen's paravirtual framebuffer, I used Otavio's recent patches) allows > > Xen to be installed using the graphical interface when a virtual > > framebuffer is configured for the guest. > > My first question would be whether we really need/want a G-I variant for > Xen.
I wasn't intending to to create a second Xen variant, but rather to enhance the existing one with the graphical option. (I think you realised that but thought I'd make sure) > Given the target audience I would think that most admins of Xen > boxes will be more than happy and even prefer to use the newt interface. Possibly true. Basically I just thought it was neat and "all the other distros are doing it" ;-) (maybe not true, Fedora/RHEL do...). The newt interface is still available if you don't add a framebuffer device, presumably only people who are interested in using it will add it. > Why not wait until we actually get requests from users? By the time they notice it'll be too late for Lenny? I'm hoping to update the wiki and lets some of the relevant Xen lists know about the daily builds over the weekend/early next week, to get some testing/gfeedback soon. Is there a downside to having g-i support in the Xen image? I'm not overly concerned about the size impact for this variant, (which is 5.3M->14M FWIW so not trivial). Ian. -- Ian Campbell Current Noise: Katatonia - Fractured The makers may make and the users may use, but the fixers must fix with but minimal clues -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
