Bug#674952: xserver-xorg-video-radeon: fails to work properly without -ati
Hey,
Op 30-05-12 00:30, Yann Dirson schreef:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:45:45PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Even then, why this Depends of ati on all 3 drivers ? I can dpkg -r
--force-depends both mach64 and r128, and ati+radeon does startup
without complaining at all. Shouldn't this be downgraded to a
Recommends as well ?
This is very fine for you. What about mach64 and r128 users? Then we'll
get reports from people turning off Recommends. The usual fine line,
between Depends and Recommends, etc. Depends means being safer.
Well, as users of other video cards, they will be able to select just
the driver for their own card, and not eg. radeon.
If you only want to use -radeon, install a custom xorg.conf that references
radeon directly.
The X server will pick 'ati' in autodetect mode, which will forward to the
correct driver.
The current situation just makes some people (eg. me ;) break the
dependency link that's the weakest to get rid of useless drivers, with
the results described in my original report.
What are you gaining?
$ for f in $(dpkg -L xserver-xorg-video-r128); do if [ -f $f ]; then ls -lh
$f; fi; done|awk '{print $5}'
110K
5.1K
676
6.0K
117K
2.2K
27
If I check the Policy about Depends, This declares an absolute
dependency, which is clearly not the case here. Even the official
definition of Recommends makes me wonder if it would not be too
strong. After all, someone with a radeon is likely to select the
readon driver, then the ati wrapper will be selected as Recommended,
but the latter should IMHO have no reason to pull mach64 and r128,
that would not fit the packages that would be found together with
this one in all but unusual installations criteria.
The current situation ensures that X works by default. People can still
select this or that driver manually as explained previously, so it looks
to me like the current relationships are fine (and have been for I think
many years).
At least downgrading to Recommends would keep things working by
default. And even downgrading to Suggests, together with -all
depending on {radeon,r128,mach64}, would keep things working by
default - while allowing those who don't want extra stuff to avoid
cruft.
The extra cruft of a few 100kb? Make your own xorg.conf and remove ati.
You'll sacrifice auto config but whatever is more important to you. :-)
~Maarten
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fc5bf4b.50...@canonical.com
Bug#674952: xserver-xorg-video-radeon: fails to work properly without -ati
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 08:33:47AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
The current situation just makes some people (eg. me ;) break the
dependency link that's the weakest to get rid of useless drivers, with
the results described in my original report.
What are you gaining?
$ for f in $(dpkg -L xserver-xorg-video-r128); do if [ -f $f ]; then ls
-lh $f; fi; done|awk '{print $5}'
110K
5.1K
676
6.0K
117K
2.2K
27
If I check the Policy about Depends, This declares an absolute
dependency, which is clearly not the case here. Even the official
definition of Recommends makes me wonder if it would not be too
strong. After all, someone with a radeon is likely to select the
readon driver, then the ati wrapper will be selected as Recommended,
but the latter should IMHO have no reason to pull mach64 and r128,
that would not fit the packages that would be found together with
this one in all but unusual installations criteria.
The current situation ensures that X works by default. People can still
select this or that driver manually as explained previously, so it looks
to me like the current relationships are fine (and have been for I think
many years).
At least downgrading to Recommends would keep things working by
default. And even downgrading to Suggests, together with -all
depending on {radeon,r128,mach64}, would keep things working by
default - while allowing those who don't want extra stuff to avoid
cruft.
The extra cruft of a few 100kb? Make your own xorg.conf and remove ati.
You'll sacrifice auto config but whatever is more important to you. :-)
The problem is, I still do not see why the small changes I propose
would not work, and thus I don't see the need for whatever sacrifice
of the auto config feature.
If there are any arguments that I missed against lowering the Depends
of ati against those drivers it knows how to wrap (and I am not saying
there can be no reason, I only have a radeon to test - I'm just
pointing to the lack of arguments, whereas I did my best to find
arguments for my proposal), I'd be glad to see them before I send a patch...
Best regards,
--
Yann
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120530181629.gw9...@home.lan
Bug#674952: xserver-xorg-video-radeon: fails to work properly without -ati
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 23:32:58 +0200, Yann Dirson wrote: The current situation just makes some people (eg. me ;) break the dependency link that's the weakest to get rid of useless drivers, with the results described in my original report. That's good, then we can point and laugh. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120530191101.gi31...@radis.cristau.org
Bug#674952: xserver-xorg-video-radeon: fails to work properly without -ati
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:02:14AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
The dependency in squeeze (and in other suites) is:
ati→{mach64,r128,radeon}
there's no:
radeon→ati
OK, my bad - surely some confusion on my side.
But the result is, GLX is entirely disabled, and we can see a fail to
loat ati messge in the log. Reinstalling them (Xorg.1.log.old
attached) suppresses the message, and shows much better init of
DRI/GLX stuff. Removing again just the -ati package, and those stop
to work again (Xorg.1.log attached).
ati is a wrapper which does the right thing, don't remove it. Or set
radeon as driver in xorg.conf if you insist on doing so (man radeon).
OK I understand that there is no absolute requirement for -ati, and
thus a Depends is probably not a good idea for some users. But for
the vast majority, who will want to use it, what about adding a note
in package descriptions of {mach64,r128,radeon} that the -ati package
is required to avoid manual Xorg configuration ? Adding somewhere the
suggestion to set the driver in xorg.conf (package desc or manpage),
to avoid depending on -ati, would also be a good idea.
Even then, why this Depends of ati on all 3 drivers ? I can dpkg -r
--force-depends both mach64 and r128, and ati+radeon does startup
without complaining at all. Shouldn't this be downgraded to a
Recommends as well ?
The current situation just makes some people (eg. me ;) break the
dependency link that's the weakest to get rid of useless drivers, with
the results described in my original report.
If I check the Policy about Depends, This declares an absolute
dependency, which is clearly not the case here. Even the official
definition of Recommends makes me wonder if it would not be too
strong. After all, someone with a radeon is likely to select the
readon driver, then the ati wrapper will be selected as Recommended,
but the latter should IMHO have no reason to pull mach64 and r128,
that would not fit the packages that would be found together with
this one in all but unusual installations criteria.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120529213257.gu9...@home.lan
Bug#674952: xserver-xorg-video-radeon: fails to work properly without -ati
Yann Dirson ydir...@free.fr (29/05/2012):
OK I understand that there is no absolute requirement for -ati, and
thus a Depends is probably not a good idea for some users. But for
the vast majority, who will want to use it, what about adding a note
in package descriptions of {mach64,r128,radeon} that the -ati package
is required to avoid manual Xorg configuration ? Adding somewhere the
suggestion to set the driver in xorg.conf (package desc or manpage),
to avoid depending on -ati, would also be a good idea.
Good thing is: we already have xserver-xorg-video-all which covers the
needs for the vast majority, by pulling -ati.
Besides that, patches welcome: debcheckout xserver-xorg-video-ati
(mailto: 674...@bugs.debian.org, plus debian-x@ if you want to make sure)
Even then, why this Depends of ati on all 3 drivers ? I can dpkg -r
--force-depends both mach64 and r128, and ati+radeon does startup
without complaining at all. Shouldn't this be downgraded to a
Recommends as well ?
This is very fine for you. What about mach64 and r128 users? Then we'll
get reports from people turning off Recommends. The usual fine line,
between Depends and Recommends, etc. Depends means being safer.
The current situation just makes some people (eg. me ;) break the
dependency link that's the weakest to get rid of useless drivers, with
the results described in my original report.
What are you gaining?
$ for f in $(dpkg -L xserver-xorg-video-r128); do if [ -f $f ]; then ls -lh $f;
fi; done|awk '{print $5}'
110K
5.1K
676
6.0K
117K
2.2K
27
If I check the Policy about Depends, This declares an absolute
dependency, which is clearly not the case here. Even the official
definition of Recommends makes me wonder if it would not be too
strong. After all, someone with a radeon is likely to select the
readon driver, then the ati wrapper will be selected as Recommended,
but the latter should IMHO have no reason to pull mach64 and r128,
that would not fit the packages that would be found together with
this one in all but unusual installations criteria.
The current situation ensures that X works by default. People can still
select this or that driver manually as explained previously, so it looks
to me like the current relationships are fine (and have been for I think
many years).
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#674952: xserver-xorg-video-radeon: fails to work properly without -ati
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:45:45PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Even then, why this Depends of ati on all 3 drivers ? I can dpkg -r
--force-depends both mach64 and r128, and ati+radeon does startup
without complaining at all. Shouldn't this be downgraded to a
Recommends as well ?
This is very fine for you. What about mach64 and r128 users? Then we'll
get reports from people turning off Recommends. The usual fine line,
between Depends and Recommends, etc. Depends means being safer.
Well, as users of other video cards, they will be able to select just
the driver for their own card, and not eg. radeon.
The current situation just makes some people (eg. me ;) break the
dependency link that's the weakest to get rid of useless drivers, with
the results described in my original report.
What are you gaining?
$ for f in $(dpkg -L xserver-xorg-video-r128); do if [ -f $f ]; then ls -lh
$f; fi; done|awk '{print $5}'
110K
5.1K
676
6.0K
117K
2.2K
27
If I check the Policy about Depends, This declares an absolute
dependency, which is clearly not the case here. Even the official
definition of Recommends makes me wonder if it would not be too
strong. After all, someone with a radeon is likely to select the
readon driver, then the ati wrapper will be selected as Recommended,
but the latter should IMHO have no reason to pull mach64 and r128,
that would not fit the packages that would be found together with
this one in all but unusual installations criteria.
The current situation ensures that X works by default. People can still
select this or that driver manually as explained previously, so it looks
to me like the current relationships are fine (and have been for I think
many years).
At least downgrading to Recommends would keep things working by
default. And even downgrading to Suggests, together with -all
depending on {radeon,r128,mach64}, would keep things working by
default - while allowing those who don't want extra stuff to avoid
cruft.
Besides that, patches welcome: debcheckout xserver-xorg-video-ati
(mailto: 674...@bugs.debian.org, plus debian-x@ if you want to make sure)
OK :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120529223020.gv9...@home.lan
