From: Jon M. Taylor <taylorj@ecs.csus.edu>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 12:32:50 -0700 (PDT)

Re: I'd like to check about a few things.

On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 TWibberley@aol.com wrote:

> Hi,

[snip]
 
> fbcon is a console manager like GGI-console, only less flexible, and a
> frambuffer target. fbcon can be made to translate all calls to it into the
> respective KGI calls.

	Yes.
 
> About this Dali/Degas thing, without GGI-console in the kernel at the same
> time as KGI, does KGI have to be the old Dali one or did I misread a post.

	Its not that it *has* to be the Dali KGI, because KGI itself is
not part of the fbcon-KGI bridge, just the KGI *drivers*.  Thus the
decision was made to use the Dali KGI *interface*, because the Degas KGI
interface changes did not affect graphics and therefore would have
required us to port all the KGI drivers from Dali to Degas to use under
fbcon and we wouldn't have gained anything from all the effort anyway. 
 
> What other issues are there over this fbcon business?

	The biggie is integrating the KGI driver makefile system with the
Linux kernel makefile system.  There are features that the current Linux
makefile system does not have that are needed by KGI.  Either it will be
necessary to overhaul the Linux makefile system to allow for these
features (which has been considered because the sound drivers could also
use these features), or some sort of gateway that lets the Linux makefile
system call out to the KGI makefile system and then come back will be
needed.  

	The second solution is much easier and I will probably go with
that at first just for the sake of having something working, but in the
long term the first solution is probably required just for the sake of
keeping the kernel neat and tidy and consistent.  I remember way back when
the Sound makefile system was completely separate, and it was a major
hassle to use.

Jon

---
'Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in 
becoming one with God.'
	- Scientist G. Richard Seed