Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:01:46 EST From: "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" <kaleb@x.org> To: sos@FreeBSD.org Cc: hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: DVORAK keyboard drivers Message-ID: <199604101401.KAA02041@exalt.x.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:28:40 EST. <199604101328.PAA14632@ra.dkuug.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > If you don't want the features of XKB, run the server with -xkb or add > > XkbDisable to your XF86Config. Really, how tough is it to edit your XF86Config > > file? Yeah, it'd be nice if you didn't have to do it two places, but it doesn't > > take a PhD to do it either, so kwicherbitchen and edit your XF86Config file > > to make XKB load the keymap you want. > > You should add a nice little util to do this (thats one of the things > I like about Xinsides server :) ) A nice little util to do what? Edit the XF86Config file? Got one, it's called vi, or emacs. To load a keymap? XKB already has a nice little util to load a keymap. RTFM xkbcomp. > > > > If you want XKB in XFree86 to automatically work better on FreeBSD then I > > need some better support at the OS level. > > Sigh, the support is (was) there look in the old sources, it worked just > fine, You just don't get it. The "support that is (was) there" consisted of dumping a raw keymap into the server overwriting the one that's compiled in. That "support" is still there and you'll get it if you use -xkb or XkbDisable. But XKB doesn't work take raw keymaps. If you had read any of the other stuff I've posted on this topic then you would have understood this. XKB takes names. Sun and Digital boxes return country codes that can easily be translated to names. FreeBSD needs an interface that returns names, not keymaps. >I think you guys screwed up if you broke that support ! Excuse me? I think you guys screwed up by not having a better interface. If you had a better interface then the switch from non-XKB to XKB would have been seamless. In the mean time, editing your XF86Config file is the solution. Is that such a difficult concept? Why is there so much resistance to this? > Besides FreeBSD is not the only one using this interface, SCO & SVR4 > does it like this too... Does this represent a fundamental design shift for FreeBSD? I've made suggestions before, and used the rationale that SVR4 does it "this way." The answer was always, "we don't care what SVR4 does." I don't use SVR4 or SCO on my personal machine and I don't care what they do. If SVR4/SCO want better integration with XKB enabled servers they'll have to provide a better interface too. -- Kaleb "getting grumpier" KEITHLEY
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604101401.KAA02041>