I would like to know why it was decided to enable Xen on all i386 kernels. The changelog simply states it was done, which isn't exactly helpful, other than to show it apparently was on purpose and not an accident.
Meanwhile amd64 kernels don't have it enabled. Why the difference? Perhaps I am wrong, but I suspect the majority of users don't give a darn about xen support, while on the other hand quite a lot of people are quite annoyed at loosing the ability to use a lot of kernel modules that made their machines actually do what they wanted to do. Certainly the nvidia and ati drivers are broken by this, and I am not sure how much convincing it would take to get either of them to fix it. I wouldn't be surprised if ndiswrapper is broken by this either, although I haven't used that lately. So really what is the point of making all kernels xen enabled when almost noone will actually use that feature, while at the same time causing lots of grief for a much larger group of users? Was having seperate xen flavour kernels really that big a deal? The only reason I seem to have found so far is in bug 473645 which to me looks like this was done entirely to make life easier for the debian installer team so that they can do testing under xen. If that's the case, well the d-i team just took priority over actually using the system by a much larger group of users. Sure the d-i is important, but so is actually being able to use the system. Could we at least have some kernel images built without xen, even if they aren't the default so that we can still use the system for what we want without all users having to go and start building custom kernels. I for one am not looking forward to going back to that, but if I have to, then I will. I highly think this change should be reconsidered. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
