Thanks for your response Rémy,
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Rémy Oudompheng
wrote:
> My definition was not about interactivity but dynamic nature.
> nvidia-beta-all is dynamic in the sense that it *computes* local
> variables that influence the resulting package. A reproducible package
> does
On 2011/3/31 Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
> I agree with the concept. However, in your opinion does
> nvidia-beta-all fall under non-reproducible? It does different things
> on different machines, but entirely in a non-interactive way. In case
> you don't want to bother to take a look at the PKGBUILD (I would
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Rémy Oudompheng
wrote:
> 2011/3/31 Det :
>> Not to keep bugging your mailboxes but I suppose the only real reasons
>> for keeping all those nvidia-specific-kernel packages in the AUR boils
>> down to these:
>>
>> 1) The user wants to install an Nvidia driver for a n
2011/3/31 Det :
> Not to keep bugging your mailboxes but I suppose the only real reasons
> for keeping all those nvidia-specific-kernel packages in the AUR boils
> down to these:
>
> 1) The user wants to install an Nvidia driver for a non-booted kernel,
> yet he doesn't want to install the driver f
Not to keep bugging your mailboxes but I suppose the only real reasons
for keeping all those nvidia-specific-kernel packages in the AUR boils
down to these:
1) The user wants to install an Nvidia driver for a non-booted kernel,
yet he doesn't want to install the driver for any the other kernels
si
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Det wrote:
> On 3/26/11, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
>> I can assure you that nvidia-beta-all (and nvidia-all which Det
>> maintains) builds the modules for all installed kernels.
>
> I do? I didn't even know that. The "Maintainer: None" phrase was a
> little confusing to me
On 3/26/11, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
> I can assure you that nvidia-beta-all (and nvidia-all which Det
> maintains) builds the modules for all installed kernels.
I do? I didn't even know that. The "Maintainer: None" phrase was a
little confusing to me ^^.
Anyway, I posted an updated PKGBUILD for the mai
On Saturday, March 19, 2011 20:19:41 Det wrote:
> Hell,
>
> So I've been thinking about this for some time now and I finally
> decided to ask the ones who know the best: would it be enough to only
> have 'nvidia-beta-all' and 'nvidia-all' in the AUR to replace all
> those nvidia-ice, nvidia-bfs
On 26 March 2011 15:43, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
>> This is implicating a lot of packages.
>>
>> Det
>>
> Hmm, didn't see the email from Devolder. Having written the initial
> nvidia-beta-all package, I can assure you that nvidia-beta-all (and
> nvidia-all which Det maintains) builds the modules fo
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Det wrote:
> On 3/19/11, Ike Devolder wrote:
>> For me its all the same, you can remove the nvidia-bede package
>> from aur
>>
>> i'll keep it in my own source tree because the nvidia-all package
>> assumes the kernel version as the running version
>>
>> most of t
On 3/19/11, Ike Devolder wrote:
> For me its all the same, you can remove the nvidia-bede package
> from aur
>
> i'll keep it in my own source tree because the nvidia-all package
> assumes the kernel version as the running version
>
> most of the time i build for a kernen which is not running at t
Op zaterdag 19 maart 2011 19:19:41 schreef Det:
> Hell,
>
> So I've been thinking about this for some time now and I finally
> decided to ask the ones who know the best: would it be enough to only
> have 'nvidia-beta-all' and 'nvidia-all' in the AUR to replace all
> those nvidia-ice, nvidia-bf
Hell,
So I've been thinking about this for some time now and I finally
decided to ask the ones who know the best: would it be enough to only
have 'nvidia-beta-all' and 'nvidia-all' in the AUR to replace all
those nvidia-ice, nvidia-bfs, eg. packages? (Decluding nvidia-utils*,
of course.)
As f
13 matches
Mail list logo
