Hi,
I would like to add the dissenting opinion:
Though I personally would probably include vesafb and fbcron in the
kernel, I don't think I have heard strong enough arguments to justify
overriding the maintainers judgment:
a) Not every possible modules is included in even our modular
kernels; people have to compile custom kernels for various
hardware components
b) Not all file systems are compiled into the kernel
c) I do not see why vesafb users are special, and root on JFS people
are not; why the former can't compile their own kerels, the latter
must.
d) Most users douse X,
e) people can also use text consoles if they do not use X.
I have not seen compelling arguments why one things vesa users
are special, or indeed, numerous; not enough to convince me to
substitute my own judgment over the person responsible for the
package, and who does all the work for maintaining it. Historically,
the debian developer has been allowed a fair degree of autonomy over
their package; this is not really a technical problem, really, it is a
judgment call; and I think we should strive not to override a
developer unless we have more than gut feelings and opinions.
For this reason, I hereby vote against the proposal.
manoj
--
In the same way that a wrongly handled blade of grass will cut one's
hand, so a badly fulfilled life in religion will drag one down to
hell. 311
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
pgpLZ3YlpbeAC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
