On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 11:20:16PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > > Would it be worthwhile to make ADB keycodes be available, and not > > default? Is there ANY reason not to do this? > > yes there is a good reason NOT to do this. people should be able to > use the debian kernel config as a reference when compiling thier own > kernel from pristine sources, if debian goes screwing around with > upstream defaults like this people will get a broken locally compiled > kernel using the same .config as debian used. that is EVIL. > > if you want archaic, obsolete adb keycodes compile your own kernel > and turn that option on, or use potato.
You're not thinking. Pristine source here means -WITH THE DEBIAN KERNEL PATCH APPLIED-. Or from BitKeeper directly. If I do this, it will go in to BitKeeper. If you try to use kernel.org kernels, you're shit out of luck to start with. > this discussion has already happened for ECN, its already been decided > there that screwing with upstream runtime defaults is WRONG, and i > agree with them. No, the majority of the ECN argument rested on its presence as a legitimate standard and an attempt to enforce that. For something internal to any one system, that does not apply. > there is no legitmate reason for not moving to linux keycodes, if you > won't then compile your own kernel. There is no legitimate reason to make people recompile their own kernels when we can perfectly easily provide the functionality they need. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
