On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Lukas Oboril <oboril.lukas at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Adriaan de Groot <groot at kde.org> wrote: >> On Friday 03 October 2008 23:20:12 Adriaan de Groot wrote: >>> Should be push >>> more aggressively for updates to the baseline nv (that would mean I would >>> have to upgrade more than once a year, too). >> >> That was meant to be "Should *we* push ..". Basically, is our selection of >> acceptable nv versions still ok? Are we finding problems due to trying to >> support all three of S10 and nv70 and nv98? > > > I think, my opinion .... we should support S10 as much as possible. > That's clear. > > Nevada ... I'm not sure ... I think that we should be on the edge... > take care about a few last builds. I think that 97 is fine. I would > like to jump over just a few builds, i.e next build on my laptop > should be 100 and then probably 104 (which plained for Xserver 1.5.1). > Build like nv70 are very obsolete these days and minimal users have > those builds. Another thing is pretty high double effort in packaging > for Nevada. Many dependencies are in Nevada integrated. I know some of > those are not in our configuration, but some of those are usefull.
Let me just say that I am concerned that feature functionality between S10 and SXCE could be a little troublesome. Having done some work on gstreamer and gst-plugins-* on S10 with dependencies, and then realizing that the equivilent gst-plugins on SXCE don't have the same set of dependencies (libavc1394, libraw1394, etc). I know that we're trying to use the dependencies in SXCE, but I'm wondering how much we will chase our tails by not using the same set of dependencies? However, I realize that trying to do so starts tilting towards a build environment, and I'm trying really hard not to start that discussion again. Ben
