Patrick McLean - Latest comments on xorg-x11-7.1 and binary drivers

In response to: xorg-x11-7.1 and binary drivers

Patrick McLean [Member] — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 03:09:59 +0000

For some reason this post has been getting a lot of comment spam lately so I am closing comments here.

In response to: xorg-x11-7.1 and binary drivers

Rolando Zappacosta [Visitor] — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 09:07:56 +0000

There is nothing I can do than to agree with Patrick McLean's comments!!!!

BTW, thanks for the info on what packages to mask.

In response to: xorg-x11-7.1 and binary drivers

Peter Read [Visitor] — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:25:30 +0000

> Then perhaps Xorg, et al. might concentrate their efforts on
> providing open source drivers that are as fast as their
> closed source counterparts.

Sure, everyone would love to, dig in if you can help. Obviously some kind of info about how the hardware works would be helpful, or even some old driver code.

*other whining about breakage*

Don't run ~arch then, you should know the risks. If you didn't before, you do now...

In response to: xorg-x11-7.1 and binary drivers

Patrick McLean [Member] — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:30:24 +0000

> Then perhaps Xorg, et al. might concentrate their efforts on
> providing open source drivers that are as fast as their
> closed source counterparts.

Video card companies don't provide any documentation on writing drivers. It's almost impossible to write a good video driver, the only reason the r300 project got anywhere is because they had a starting point (older, supported ATI cards). The "nv" driver is little better than binary code and was written by nvidia.

We would have excellent open source drivers, if companies actually provided documentation on how to write decent drivers.

In response to: xorg-x11-7.1 and binary drivers

Ralph Cramden [Visitor] — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:14:48 +0000

> I don't think any open source project should be forced to hold back their
> development simply because some hardware company refuses to release open source
> drivers or at least specifications.

Then perhaps Xorg, et al. might concentrate their efforts on providing open source drivers that are as fast as their closed source counterparts.

>> insert your favorite meaningless, mealy-mouthed open source advocacy here

In response to: xorg-x11-7.1 and binary drivers

Michael Smith [Visitor] — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:41:39 +0000

bleh -- I mean ">=" changed to "<".

In response to: xorg-x11-7.1 and binary drivers

Michael Smith [Visitor] — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:40:10 +0000

Maybe it's just me, but it seems inelegant to *unmask* all those Xorg deps and then *remask* the 7.1 ones. Why not just put Patrick's list of atoms in package.keywords (with ">=" changed to "

In response to: xorg-x11-7.1 and binary drivers

Aaron Peterson [Visitor] — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:24:34 +0000

I just commented out nvidia in the make.conf video cards section.. oh wait.. I also switched to the nv driver.. and I'm also typing this message on the same machine.. just booted to windows... :(

I think it wouldn't be that much harder to have a more in-depth requirements list, something other than a "hard block", or hard upgrade...

I should be able to specify my world file, my make.conf, and be done with it.

So, yes.. it was good that we got bit while it was in ~arch. Next, we need to find a way to make ourselves not get bit again.

We should very rarely come across a block because of a newer version loosing compatibility. We should have a note: can't upgrade these packages until fat-arse over there gets off his butt, upgrade everything else? y/n

Oh wait... portage will not be interactive by design... and I'm thinking of Debian apt or BSD ports...

interactive ain't bad... it should just take place in one sitting and build... download the options list, go through a wizard, have the wizard check for things that will break, then download and compile everything.

-AP