On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:48:07 -0700,
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - at the opposite of the xorg-x11 meta ebuild, a pkg_setup check
> > xorg-server ("if hasq ati $VIDEO_CARDS; then eerror ...") makes
> > sense, since it would die at the right time, before the drivers
> > updates.
Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> So imho, that's a lot of unlikely conditions one should join to end
> with broken drivers, and i don't think you should care too much about
> it.
Thanks for your input.
> The ati --> {mach64,radeon,r128} change may make some of the above more
> likely to happe
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:43:32 -0700,
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is requiring everyone to unmerge drivers a worse solution than
> breaking some people who emerged drivers directly?
Depends how many people are on each side i guess. But here, i would
expect really very few people to
>> Would it harm anything, if the drivers become a dependency of the second
>> kind?
>
> It would mean that you could have the xorg-x11 metabuild installed and
> yet still not have a complete installation, if the emerge failed after
> it was installed.
Yes, you're right. I missed that point.
s
Sven Köhler wrote:
Would it harm anything, if the drivers become a dependency of the second
kind?
It would mean that you could have the xorg-x11 metabuild installed and
yet still not have a complete installation, if the emerge failed after
it was installed.
The question of what type of depe
Hi,
> The obvious symptom when you don't have any valid VIDEO_CARDS set will
> be that the xorg-x11 ebuild tries to pull in everything. Warnings or
> die()'s about this change are useless, they will be too late because all
> the drivers will have already been built at that point.
but doesn't port
A valid problem with this approach. Is requiring everyone to unmerge
drivers a worse solution than breaking some people who emerged drivers
directly?
I very much dislike making people unmerge things. It's not intuitive
for anyone, having to remove the old program to upgrade a dependency
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Olivier Crête wrote:
On Mon, 2006-17-04 at 13:05 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Alec Warner wrote:
Well the semantics of the blocker is that the new driver won't work
with the old server; is that true? Or just the old drivers won't
work with the new server?
New ser
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> The drivers cannot be upgraded until a newer server is installed. So
> technically, this would allow things to work by forcing people to
> unmerge all their drivers before upgrading, then remerge the new
> versions. That's not a very desirable solution either, but do you th
Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
What about a big PDEPEND in xorg-server-1.1 ebuild, with a bunch of
"video_cards_foobar? ( >=x11-drivers/xf86-video-foobar-NewVersion )"?
That should be enough to force a smooth update of the video drivers
after the server. And, the RDEPEND on video drivers coul
On Monday 17 April 2006 22:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
> Then you should probably has new drivers block old servers and new
> servers block old drivers...
Better have new drivers depend on new server rather...
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/F
Olivier Crête wrote:
On Mon, 2006-17-04 at 13:05 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Alec Warner wrote:
Well the semantics of the blocker is that the new driver won't work with
the old server; is that true? Or just the old drivers won't work with
the new server?
New server requires new drivers. Old
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 09:19:48 -0700,
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Stelling wrote:
> > Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> >> We are working to ensure the dependencies work as smoothly as
> >> possible, but I expect there will be some issues since it's
> >> difficult to require updates to
On Mon, 2006-17-04 at 13:05 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Alec Warner wrote:
> > Well the semantics of the blocker is that the new driver won't work with
> > the old server; is that true? Or just the old drivers won't work with
> > the new server?
>
> New server requires new drivers. Old serv
On Sun, 2006-16-04 at 20:38 -0400, Thomas Cort wrote:
> Olivier Fisette wrote:
> > Another dev from Québec city! Welcome to the team, Thomas.
>
> Thank you for the warm welcome. I'm actually in North Hatley (near
> Sherbrooke) in the province of Québec. Another Gentoo developer,
> deltacow, also
Alec Warner wrote:
Well the semantics of the blocker is that the new driver won't work with
the old server; is that true? Or just the old drivers won't work with
the new server?
New server requires new drivers. Old server requires old drivers. There
is no valid combination of new and old.
Volkov Peter wrote:
> Hello.
>
> IMO the very important element of gentoo user relations that is absent
> at w.g.o is search field! Gentoo does not have good searching point.
>
> Each time I encounter bug/problem before asking for help if I'm a good
> boy I have to search for solution in differen
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Simon Stelling wrote:
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
We are working to ensure the dependencies work as smoothly as possible,
but I expect there will be some issues since it's difficult to require
updates to all these optional drivers following an update to the server.
wouldn'
Hi all,
By request, the "ati" VIDEO_CARDS setting has been split into three
separate settings, one for each driver: Mach64/Rage XL (mach64), Rage128
(r128), and all Radeons (radeon).
This will reduce build time on mesa, x11-drm, and kdrive (once I update
it). It will also significantly reduce the
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> We are working to ensure the dependencies work as smoothly as possible,
>> but I expect there will be some issues since it's difficult to require
>> updates to all these optional drivers following an update to the server.
>
> wouldn't !< atoms solv
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 08:20:13PM -0400, Curtis Napier wrote:
> > Congratulations Christian! :-)
Congrats++
Wernfried
--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org
pgpL
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
We are working to ensure the dependencies work as smoothly as possible,
but I expect there will be some issues since it's difficult to require
updates to all these optional drivers following an update to the server.
wouldn't !< atoms solve that problem?
--
Kind Regards,
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 11:21:29AM +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
>
>
>>Please solve this mess - don't package.mask openobex-apps until
>>openobex-1.2 has the same KEYWORDS as openobex.
>>
>>
>
>... as openobex-apps, of course.
>
>./Brix
>
>
OK, I've remove
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 11:21:29AM +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> Please solve this mess - don't package.mask openobex-apps until
> openobex-1.2 has the same KEYWORDS as openobex.
... as openobex-apps, of course.
./Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Metadistribution |
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 09:19:38AM +0300, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> >Why did you p.mask openobex-apps before openobex-1.2 is stable?
> >
> For forcing users to test openobex-1.2 ;)
> I think openobex-1.2 should be unmasked, but I am waiting for ticho to
> actually do this.
Hello.
IMO the very important element of gentoo user relations that is absent
at w.g.o is search field! Gentoo does not have good searching point.
Each time I encounter bug/problem before asking for help if I'm a good
boy I have to search for solution in different places: forums, mailing
lis
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> It is my pleasure to announce publicly that ian! has passed all
> necessary quizzes to touch our holy gra^H^H^H portage tree.
Ian - welcome :)
--
Krzysiek Pawlik key id: 0xBC51
desktop-misc, desktop-dock, x86, java, apache...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP
27 matches
Mail list logo
