I don't have access to a 32-bit debian machine on which to build a 32-bit version of the patched kernel. I can do something like create a 32-bit virtual machine and make it on that but I am booked solid for the next few days. I probably won't get to it until the weekend. It's really irritating to me that we have to go through this. By the normal definition of a bug, the code as it exists now has the bug. My code doesn't introduce a bug, it just doesn't conform to the standards for writing to the serial port. I understand the importance of standards. I am about as big on the concept that neatness counts computers as anybody. But people come first. I mean there is one awa responsible for this, IMO. The thing about this patch is that it's not a bug as such. There are pluses an minuses to what it does. By the normal definition of a bug, something about a program that doesn't serve it's intended purpose, the way it is now is a bug, not the patch. The kernel developers call the patch a bug because it doesn't do things the way they think it should be done. And they have a point there, I'm not disputing that. It is just that it doesn't work at all done the way they want it done. In my opinion, this is a question of values. I completely agree that standards like the ones the kernel developers are enforcing are important. YYou will have to trust me on this but I am truely a "neatness counts" guy when it comes to computers. But people come first. Jobs may depend on this. It's hard enough for blind people to get get and keep jobs in IT without the kernel developers throwing up additional barriers to their success. The code is in the "staging" area. When you load a speakup kernel module, a wwarning is displayed. That should be enough. PS: There ought to be a word for this kind of nerdy behaviour. It's like tamping down security so much that nobody can use the system. You want to make a computer completely secure so nobody can break in, turn it off. 1, Hart Larry wrote: > OK, I wanted to try John's later kernel, which might let me still run a > DecTalk U S B. But the immage is an amd64. Would their be a way of > converting to 32bit, or would it actually run? Thanks so much in advance. > Hart > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at linux-speakup.org > http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup > -- --- John G. Heim, 608-263-4189, jheim at math.wisc.edu
