Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 23:47:19 -0700 From: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> To: "O. Hartmann" <ohartmann@walstatt.org> Cc: Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD CURRENT <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r316977 - head/sys/dev/syscons Message-ID: <CAN6yY1s-_GhZ3xv_h7JHqcbXcmvxK9DRUO0hvBn8dkz_J=-7Lw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20170416075542.022a6902@thor.intern.walstatt.dynvpn.de> References: <201704152003.v3FK3o3w002356@repo.freebsd.org> <20170415222136.6c58a00d@thor.intern.walstatt.dynvpn.de> <CAG6CVpWy5Y13oMra90nMkStt%2B8w85%2Byx7Qto3RCsg5-6gAY9tw@mail.gmail.com> <20170416075542.022a6902@thor.intern.walstatt.dynvpn.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 10:55 PM, O. Hartmann <ohartmann@walstatt.org> wrote: > Am Sat, 15 Apr 2017 18:00:18 -0700 > Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> schrieb: > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:21 PM, O. Hartmann <ohartmann@walstatt.org> > wrote: > > > Am Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:03:50 +0000 (UTC) > > > Bruce Evans <bde@FreeBSD.org> schrieb: > > > > > >> Author: bde > > >> Date: Sat Apr 15 20:03:50 2017 > > >> New Revision: 316977 > > >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/316977 > > > > > > There is a lot of development going on theses days for syscons. What's > about vt()? > > > vt() is considered broken for x11/nvidia-driver and vt() is considered > a requirement > > > when UEFI is boot scheme, isn't it? > > > > > > I'm just curious. > > > > Hi O., > > > > Bruce uses syscons and cares enough to improve it. He likely does not > > care about UEFI and definitely does not care about vt. I don't think > > there's anything wrong with that. We can't force volunteers to work > > on things they are not interested in. > > > > Best, > > Conrad > > Hello Conrad, happy easter. > > There is and was never intention to apply "force", it is a question as I'm > curious about > what's going on with vt() - no personally bound to B. Evans or anybody > else - I just took > the chance to comment/ask on that subject when I saw postings. > > Maybe not the right place to spread some thinkings. > > Regards, > > Oliver Hartmann > vt(4) is not a pleasant thing to look at. I am not implying that it is bad code or badly done. I am just saying that it is pretty gnarly and is not the sort of thing most enjoy dealing with. I got the distinct feeling that ray@ found the job much uglier than he anticipated when he took the Foundation commission to write it. Since then it has been widely disparaged for the things that it does not do, but I am not aware that anyone has gotten further than looking at what is needed and then running far away.Some day someone (or some company) will get sufficiently inspired to either re-write if or add the missing features. I have no idea when that might happen, though. -- Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN6yY1s-_GhZ3xv_h7JHqcbXcmvxK9DRUO0hvBn8dkz_J=-7Lw>