On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 04:05:11PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: > On Don, 2003-02-27 at 21:48, Daniel Burrows wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 06:51:02PM +0100, Michel D?nzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > was heard to say: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wc -c /proc/fb > > > ~ > > > 0 /proc/fb > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> cat /proc/fb > > > ~ > > > 0 M9 Lf > > > > My, that's messed up..
No, that's exactly the kind of thing I'd expect to see from /proc/fb. > > anyway, maybe I should have used the example > > where I tested [ -n $(cat /proc/fb) ] and it failed. How's this? > > torrent:~> cat /proc/fb > > torrent:~> od /proc/fb > > 0000000 > > torrent:~> cat /proc/fb | wc -c > > 0 The xserver-xfree86 config script interprets this as "kernel framebuffer device unavailable" -- isn't that correct? > Weird. Anyway, the test certainly isn't adequate because Option > "UseFBDev" doesn't work with generic framebuffer devices like vesafb, > OFfb, ... Could you propose a better test? What will /proc/fb say when someone is using a generif framebuffer device like vesafb, OFfb, and so forth? I can write the string parsing; just tell me what values I need to ignore. Also, I assume that anyone using a generic framebuffer needs to be using the "fbdev" XFree86 *driver*, right? -- G. Branden Robinson | There's no trick to being a Debian GNU/Linux | humorist when you have the whole [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government working for you. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Will Rogers
pgpizEybAx03i.pgp
Description: PGP signature
