Yeah, the packages as i built them, as i said, do not build the OPTIONAL
KERNEL MODULES, everything works anyway. Thanks, Ville Slytta, for the
insight in kernel module packaging in case at some point needs
consideration, again, NOT NOW as Ilyes Gouta repeats (and 1.7 is current).
If SDL2 IS DROPP
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Juan Manuel Borges Caño
> wrote:
> > The packages built okay without the optional kernel module (to know,
> > linux-fusion is the one), if that turns to be obligatory, again, i'd take
> > alsa packaging
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Juan Manuel Borges Caño
wrote:
> The packages built okay without the optional kernel module (to know,
> linux-fusion is the one), if that turns to be obligatory, again, i'd take
> alsa packaging as a cool example :)
ALSA kernel modules are included in the upstream
So does alsa, doesn't it? Everyone finds that acceptable. There are tons of
kernel modules on fedora, i don't see why that could be an stopper.
The packages built okay without the optional kernel module (to know,
linux-fusion is the one), if that turns to be obligatory, again, i'd take
alsa packag
The original maintainer orphaned it because it depends on kernel module
more and more.
Any thoughts?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Hi, first so everyone know the news, SDL2 support for framebuffer (it is,
wihtout X!!!) displaying is becoming lacky. The more near implementation to
work is DirectFB (tested, small trivial patch to go)
So, on another news, DirectFB has been *orphaned* for some time, yes,
astonishing to me too ;)
