On 9/24/12 8:15 PM, John Reiser wrote:
If it is known that any Radeon card less than Radeon 9600 won't work
satisfactorily in the default Gnome3 desktop, then Fedora should
admit it up front, and raise the minimum stated requirements.
I'm sure the docs team takes patches.
But also: that's not a thing we would know without running the very test
day you're claiming is of no value.
a) You're calling out a test you ran once nearly two years ago. Pretty
sure we've fixed at least one RV200 bug since then.
Please give a specific reference. Here are all the CLOSED bugs with RV200.
I don't see a single one that is RV200-specific that was fixed after October 2010.
Only 680651 and 493328 were fixed; the rest are "WONT FIX". 680651 is not
specific to RV200, and 493328 was more than two years ago.
Why do you expect every issue with a GPU is reported in Fedora's
bugzilla? Or in a bugzilla at all? Or that every affected GPU is
mentioned, if the bug affects class of GPUs?
Bugzilla is a collection of stories. There's no reason to believe it's
exhaustive.
c) I'm fairly sure zero of the tests you've shown to fail there _do_
matter. They all happen when you do a Render operation directly to a
window, and nobody does that. Drawing straight to a window is
unbelievably flickery, that's why everybody buffers things up to an
offscreen pixmap and then blits across to the window (using core
CopyArea, not Render).
When I run the anaconda installer for Fedora 18 Alpha, then I see
bad _graphics_. It's not clear where the problems lie,
and this is Alpha. Nevertheless, I expected better _graphics_.
I think you meant this in response to this next point:
Why do you feel this is relevant? X bugs are X bugs.
In which case: that's a fine expectation, and your rant about Gnome
fallback mode has _nothing to do with it_.
Also forget about any card+monitor which does not report EDID/DCC.
"Forget about broken hardware"? Yeah, please do.
That hardware meets Fedora's minimum stated requirements
[The requirements mention nothing about graphics hardware.]
Furthermore, the hardware is merely old, not necessarily "broken".
Just because the hardware pre-dates the feature does not automatically
make it "broken". If EDID+DDC is a requirement, then say so.
EDID isn't a requirement.
Some method for detection of the display is a prerequisite for plug and
play working. We would prefer that be EDID; if your platform uses
something else then we can attempt to accomodate that. But if there's
no PNP support we'll try to stumble along, so no, EDID is not strictly
required.
Nonetheless, hardware that can't plug and play in 2012 is broken. For
DDC support in particular there is no excuse, that spec (and the first
OS it was a logo requirement for) is old enough to get a driver's
license by now. Making a point of documenting it is sort of like
insisting that the computer should be powered by electricity.
- ajax
--
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
