On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 02:40:03AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 02:35:39PM +0200, Maximilian Attems wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 03:31:18PM +0900, Horms wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 06:00:55PM +0200, Maximilian Attems wrote: > > > > the old legacy modular vesafb patch got dropped. > > > > and it seems it was overlooked to set them to yes. > > > > > > I think I might have made that change, and at the very least > > > I remember discussing it. I think that the idea was that > > > it has actually been superceeded by another module. However > > > if this isn't the case, I guess setting it to yes is a good idea. > > > Does anyone know what this might break? > > > > well the d-i guys should get a notice: > > currently vesa failed by default so they dropped into vga16, > > which is known not to work on a range of laptops. > > On some laptops, only vga16fb works. On others, only vesafb works. The > reason we try both is so that you can have vga16fb by default (which has > fairly good coverage, albeit not perfect) and try vesafb if you know the > right vga=MODE argument to give the kernel. > > Matthew Garrett tells me that only vga16fb supports suspend/resume. > > > as background info the old half-baken vesa modular patch conflicts > > with upstream fixes. hch, waldi and i decided that to be a good > > time to drop it. > > Unless the hardware support of one or other framebuffer driver has been > radically improved, or unless there's something else I'm > misunderstanding, I think we still need modular vesafb?
Modular vesafb is horribly broken and Debian-specific. I'm happy with any solution that involves not having moduler vesafb. -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
