Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: covici@××××××××××.com
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: kernel 3.2->3.5 upgrade unusable: keyboard borked
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 20:37:26
Message-Id: 26328.1354480456@ccs.covici.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-user] Re: kernel 3.2->3.5 upgrade unusable: keyboard borked by Grant Edwards
1 Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote:
2
3 > On 2012-12-02, covici@××××××××××.com <covici@××××××××××.com> wrote:
4 > > Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote:
5 >
6 > >>> Is this a laptop? with no num pad? On my laptop the numpad is mapped to the
7 > >>> keys like you described, so when Num Lock is toggled those keys function as
8 > >>> the num pad.
9 > >>
10 > >> You can check if rc-update -s -v | grep numlock (or rc-status -s | grep
11 > >> numlock) shows it being set, otherwise add it to see if this makes a
12 > >> difference.
13 > >
14 > > I think numlock is on by default in newer kernels
15 >
16 > That pretty much sucks. Is that configurable sowewhere?
17 >
18 > > -- just turn it off with the key
19 >
20 > The Numlock key doesn't work with the 3.5 kernel.
21 >
22 > > -- I am pretty sure even your laptop has such a simulated key.
23 >
24 > My keyboard does have a numlock key, but it doesn't turn numlock on/off
25 > with the 3.5 kernel.
26
27 At least with 3.6 kernel and above, the numlock key does work -- I am
28 using a desktop with the regular keyboard. So I wonder if you go to 3.6
29 will it be any better?
30
31 --
32 Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is:
33 How do
34 you spend it?
35
36 John Covici
37 covici@××××××××××.com