On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:26:52AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > See below. I claim Herbert Xu to decide not reasonable in this issue, > working against ?4 of the social contract. Please decide wise and force > him to change the current situation. > > See also > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=161931&repeatmerged=yes > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=134220&repeatmerged=yes > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=104101&repeatmerged=yes > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=123987&repeatmerged=yes
Here's what I get, technically, from reading those bug reports: 104101 -- debian kernels are being compiled without FB_VESA so vesa support doesn't work on debian kernels. 123987 -- vesa support breaks on some machines 134220 -- nothing new 161931 -- Gerd Knorr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is the vesafb author, and is reported as saying that vesafb doesn't hurt on any machines. Using google, I can't find any reports of vesa support breaking under current linux kernels. So: Proposal 1: we believe Herbert Xu and agree that vesa support not be included in debian kernels. Proposal 2: we believe that vesa support is both useful and harmless and ask Herbert Xu to include it in debian kernels. I think proposal 1 is a bad idea unless we find some significant evidence to the contrary. What do the rest of you think? Does anyone have more information on this subject? Perhaps we should invite Herbert Xu and/or Gerd Knorr to comment on this subject? Are there any good reasons for accepting proposal 1? Thanks, -- Raul
