On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 18:57 +0100, Jan de Groot wrote: > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 11:38 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote: > > > > Well, I guess what I was saying is: *can* we even fix it? I mean, if > > they release a broken driver, we can't exactly patch some closed > > source blob > > I don't think we can fix most problems, but even if we were able to, > licensing does not permit us. One example is the use of /usr/lib64 which > is plain ugly. We can use sed on the binary files to load it > from /usr/lib, but that violates the license because we're not allowed > to distribute altered binaries. > > Whatever happens, I'm preparing xorg-server 1.6 this week for testing. I > don't think AMD supports server-1.6 yet, but Nvidia does, so I see no > reason to stick this release in testing as long as we did with > server-1.5. > Aaron, what you say is true, I thought they could fix it, but as Jan pointed out, is not legal to alter a blob. Didn't thought it that way so Aaron you are right about moving this to AUR instead.
Jan, No catalyst does not support xorg-server-1.6 yet, another example on how bad ATIs support is. I do vote for you not to hold xorg-server that long waiting for them.
