On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 23:29 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 11:36:33 -0700, > Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 12:33 -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote: > > > There is a small fly in this ointment. The above may work, usually, > > > but very far from always. For example, if monitor EDID data are > > > faulty or not present at all, and this is _not_ a hypothetical > > > situation, then a configuration you are getting is busted. Also > > > something which is possible, and even "correct" in some sense, does > > > not need to be optimal/desired in a given situation. > > > > Perfect is the enemy of good. > > > > Ajax has in the past asked for /anybody/ to provide him situations where > > the EDID is bogus. > > I have had a ticket open since last February where the driver ignores > a monitor because it doesn't do EDID and ends up not sending any signal to > the DVI port (I suspect it is getting sent to the VGA port). I have to > patch xorg-x11-drv-ati everytime a new version becomes available. This > actually works pretty well, but is still annoying. Bug number? I drown in bugzilla. - ajax
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
