On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 09:29:54AM +0100, Artur R. Czechowski wrote: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 10:33:05PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > If you have a Rage 128 device, the ati driver will load the r128 driver > > automatically. > You are right... > > > If it doesn't, please file a bug against the xserver-xfree86 package. > ...then I see no neccessary for it. But maybe description like ati/r128 in > debconf templates will be good idea? README.r128 is mislead. It claims: > > Section "Device" > Identifier "Rage 128" > Driver "r128" > EndSection > > and there is nothing said that Driver "ati" is sufficient. > > However there is a note in README.ati.gz, but who will read it after reading > README.r128? Well, I read it even now, just to check :) > > I decided to reopen this bug as a wishlist, but if you mind that working > on it is just a wasting time feel free to close it - I wont object. > > If you consider this wish as worth to fix please note me which way you preffer: > change a debconf template or make note in documentation. I will prepare > a patch[1].
Generally, I write my debconf templates for an audience of novices -- not an audience that thinks it knows what is doing but is wrong. If I did the latter, the templates would have to be much larger. If you have an ATI card, use the "ati" driver. I do not understand what is confusing or misleading about that. I'll leave this bug open for a while to collect comments and opinions from others, but at present I don't see a reason to change anything. The "submodule" approach that the ATI driver is one that other XFree86 X server modules could use, and which is essentially transparent to the user. Why should I throw information at the users in a debconf template that they don't need? -- G. Branden Robinson | The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I [EMAIL PROTECTED] | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
