Re: Ruby-2.6.8[.1/.2]?

[Helge H. <hel...@hi...>]

Aivils wrote:

>On Saturday 21 August 2004 05:13, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
>  
>
>>Zoltan Boszormenyi írta:
>>    
>>
>>>Dear Aivil,
>>>
>>>now that Linux-2.6.8.1 is out and the fix to the most important bug,
>>>namely a huge memleak during audio CD/SVCD writing is found and
>>>Linux-2.6.8.2 is just around the corner, can we expect a ruby tree
>>>against them? Or as there is a long weekend in Hungary, will you accept
>>>my work if I volunteer?
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>Zoltán Böszörményi
>>>      
>>>
>>I had time to make it, here is the result.
>>Two patches: one is against linux-2.6.8.1,
>>the other is against the ruby/ruby-2.6 CVS tree.
>>
>>WARNING!
>>
>>The FB changes were highly excessive between 2.6.7 and 2.6.8
>>and I don't really know the code there, so fbcon, et.al does not
>>even compile.
>>
>>But the vgacon and dummycon consoles are working so multiple X servers
>>are possible. I am running it now.
>>    
>>
>
>Thank You. I will compare my and your code. I have my own version,
>but without fbcon. fbcon will not work on my Voodoo3. If anyone can
>start vanilla 2.6.8 fbcon, please drop a note to me.
>  
>
I didn't try 2.6.8, but linux 2.6.8.1 works for me with fbcon
on a radeon card.  Zoltans ruby 2.6.8.1 compiles fine, except for the
fbcon module.  I can log in blind and start X though, so
it is useable.  X starting from a boot script works too.
Multiple framebuffers (mga+radeon) does not
work, I get a fb for the mga only.  Ruby 2.6.7 have the same problem.

>Unfortunately a have not patience enough walk through changes,
>which freezy all at start.
>  
>
Probably a broken fb driver then, linux 2.6.8.1 seems fine with the
radeon fb+fbcon.

>I have expirence, if fb low level driver is broken, then it never comes
>back alive. After i will try vesafb-tng by spock.
>  
>

>  
>
>>I have a question: do you intend to push this thing into Linus' or
>>akpm's kernel? I would be happy to see this in -mm because there are
>>many changes again in 2.6.8.1-mm3 against the areas the Ruby tree
>>touches.
>>    
>>
>
>i dont trust in 2.6.XX
>  
>
Why not?  My experience is that 2.6 works well, but of course 2.4 have had
much more time to stabilize.  Getting ruby-2.6 into the 2.6.x-mm kernel
would be nice, there'd be much more testers and less to sync up against
with new releases. 

Helge Hafting