On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 15:06 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > Apologies for the delay here, but I've updated the change proposal > page based on the feedback in this thread. Please let me know what you > think.
To echo what Kamil and Kevin said earlier: I'm fine with this so long as we still have a viable fallback path option that generally works on hardware which is broken with native drivers for whatever reason. I don't really care how that is implemented. It doesn't even need to be set up so that booting with `nomodeset` triggers it, really - it's easy enough to change the bootloader configs of the installer/live images to do something else if necessary. I just want it to be explicitly part of the Change's scope that a replacement fallback path (for both BIOS and UEFI, as long as we keep BIOS support around): * Exists * Generally works * Is available from installer/live images in the same way as currently If this is possible only for UEFI but not for BIOS, I'd feel much more conflicted about the Change. Right now it's not entirely clear whether this is considered part of the Change scope or not. The paragraph about the `uvesafb` driver seems kind of aspirational and doesn't seem to commit to anything. The "Benefit to Fedora" section states "Verified modern supported paths for cases currently handled by vesa/fbdev", but I'm not 100% clear what is meant by that. Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
