| Re: [proaudio] fbsplash for -rt |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/proaudio Archives
]
On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:28:43 -0700
"Mark Knecht" <markknecht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 5/18/06, Thomas Kuther <gimpel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:11:37 -0700
> > "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/18/06, Thomas Kuther <gimpel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 18 May 2006 10:43:00 -0700
> > > > "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 5/18/06, Thomas Kuther <gimpel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 18 May 2006 18:21:44 +0000
> > > > > > krgn <k.gebbert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > is it going to be part of the ebuild at some stage?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > KArsten
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Frieder, you want to include it? (don't want to mess around
> > > > > > in your ebuild ;))
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Uploaded it to our tuxfamily webspace:
> > > > > > SRC_URI:
> > > > > > http://proaudio.tuxfamily.org/patches/fbsplash-0.9.2-r5-2.6.16-rt.patch
> > > > >
> > > > > If you choose to include it please add a USE flag to control
> > > > > its addition. I do not want to add it to my kernels. If Ingo
> > > > > doesn't add it then I want to build without it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > lol, fbsplash has nothing to do with -rt. You do not have to
> > > > enable it in your kernel config if you do not want it. It's
> > > > configurable. gentoo-sources also has no useflag for it, so why
> > > > should rt-sources?
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > >
> > > OK - do what you want. Sorry to make a request
> > >
> >
> > No it's OK! Sorry if that sounded too harsh, i didn't mean it so
> > hard. It's just like, to be consequent, that evermind would also
> > have to make vesafb-tng and realtime-lsm a useflag, because those
> > two also are not included into Ingo's -rt patch - because both also
> > have absolutely nothing to do at all with the -rt patch. :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Tom
>
> OK, sorry if I took it wrong. My apologies for that.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
No problem! :)
If i had explained correctly what i mean in the first place,
that wouldn't have happened.. so.. my fault :)
Cheers,
Tom