Michael Scherer wrote: > Le jeudi 13 juillet 2006 à 14:52 +0300, Anssi Hannula a écrit : > >>Hi! >> >>I'm not too happy with the naming of packages right now: >> >>dkms-nvidia: kernel module package >>nvidia-xorg: X11 driver and tools >>libnvidia-xorg1: shared libraries for i586 >>lib64nvidia-xorg1: shared libraries for x86_64 >>libnvidia-xorg1-devel: static libraries and headers for i586 >>lib64nvidia-xorg1-devel: static libraries and headers for x86_64 >> >>dkms-ati: kernel module package >>ati-xorg: X11 driver and tools >>ati-xorg-32bit-compat: x86 compatibility for x86_64 >>ati-devel: static libs and headers >> >>There are a few problems with this: >>If the x86_64 user wishes to use some x86 OpenGL software, either from >>the Mandriva i586 repository or 3rd party, he needs to have another pkg >>(libnvidia-xorg1, ati-xorg-32bit-compat) installed to have hardware 3D >>acceleration. >>- although explained in the description, this is not immediately obvious >>- also, since the recent separating of i586 and x86_64 repos on PLF, >>libnvidia-xorg1 is on i586 media, which the user may or may not have >>installed on x86_64 >>- this is incompatible with the Mandriva Club packages, that provide all >>the necessary libraries in the main package. Thus when user upgrades to >>PLF ones, he loses x86 3D acceleration support >> >>The naming "nvidia-xorg" and "ati-xorg" doesn't sound too logical, either. >> >> >>I have two different proposals: >> >>dkms-nvidia: kernel module package >>nvidia: X11 driver, tools and libraries >>nvidia-devel: static libs and headers >> >>dkms-ati: kernel module package >>ati: X11 driver, tools and libraries >>ati-devel: static libs and headers >> >>This is also the scheme that Mandriva's Club packages use, and is pretty >>simple. In this scheme, the libs, including 32bit compatibility libs >>would be embedded in the main package. Thus "nvidia" would be 2MB larger >>than the previous "nvidia-xorg", and "ati" would be 5MB larger than the >>previous "ati-xorg". >> >>The other one: >> >>nvidia: metapackage requiring everything >>dkms-nvidia: kernel module package >>x11-driver-video-nvidia: X11 driver, tools and libraries >>nvidia-gl: GL libraries >>nvidia-gl-32bit-compat: 32bit GL libraries for x86_64 >>nvidia-devel: static libs and headers >> >>ati: metapackage requiring everything >>dkms-ati: kernel module package >>x11-driver-video-fglrx: X11 driver, tools and libraries >>ati-gl: GL libraries >>ati-gl-32bit-compat: 32bit GL libraries for x86_64 >>ati-devel: static libs and headers >>(the control panel could also be separated, as it requires qt3 etc) >> >>Here Club compatibility is also preserved, but we have split the pkg to >>smaller chunks. This allows the user to (1) not install 32bit-compat if >>he doesn't want to and (2) install a driver without the hardware 3d stuff. >> >> >>People, please tell me what would you prefer? >> >>I like the first one (Club scheme) more, as IMHO the latter one is too >>complicated for very little gain. > > > I prefer the second one, isn't there some deps that would be pulled by > ati-gl-32bit-compat ? ( now or maybe in the future ).
By default (ati|nvidia)-gl-32bit-compat would pull libx11_6 and libxext6 for libX11.so.6 and libXext.so.6 (libxorg-x11 on 2006.0). We could have a _requires_exceptions however, as these will be pulled anyway by the 32bit software that the user wishes to use. Club ati package doesn't seem to have _requires_exceptions, it will pull 32bit libxorg-x11 on x86_64 too. I was thinking that the "ati" metapackage could pull this package (named ati-gl-32bit-compat or libati-gl1), do you agree with that? Or do you think the current method of providing a notification in the main pkg description is enough? "To enable the NVIDIA hardware OpenGL acceleration also for 32bit applications you should install the package libnvidia-xorg1 too." > And, is there a reason to not follow library naming policy, except the > fact that mandriva club do not follows it ? Well... ati has 3 libGL.so.1 libraries: 1. 32-bit one (not usable on 64-bit host) 2. 64-bit one 3. 32-bit wrapper for 64-bit hosts So we would end up having libati-gl1.i586.rpm, lib64ati-gl1.x86_64.rpm, libati-gl1.x86_64.rpm? If that's preferable, it is doable. For nvidia there are only 2 libGL.so.1 libraries: 1. 32-bit one, also usable as a wrapper on 64-bit host 2. 64-bit one However, currently the libnvidia-xorg1 is shipped only on i586 PLF media. I'm not sure if that's a good idea, as for example i586 libxorg-x11 is shipped on Mandriva x86_64 medias too. So I'd like to have the 32-bit nvidia GL lib in a x86_64 pkg too. The ati and nvidia packaging schemes would then be similar. The tool libraries (libnvidia-tls.so.1, libnvidia-cfg.so.1, libfglrx_gamma.so.1, libfglrx_pp.so.1, libfglrx_dm.so.1) could be put to their own package following the lib naming policy, though. I think I'll do that. So maybe like this? nvidia: metapackage requiring everything dkms-nvidia: kernel module package x11-driver-video-nvidia: X11 driver nvidia-tools Control panel and command line tools lib64nvidia-gl1: GL libraries (on x86_64 only) libnvidia-gl1: GL libraries (on *both* i586 and x86_64) lib64nvidia1 Other libraries than GL (XVMC etc) lib64nvidia1-devel: static XVMC library and GL headers ati: metapackage requiring everything dkms-ati: kernel module package x11-driver-video-fglrx: X11 driver ati-tools Control panel and command line tools lib64ati-gl1: GL libraries (on x86_64 only) libati-gl1: GL libraries (on *both* i586 and x86_64) lib64ati1 Other libraries than GL (dm, gamma, pp) lib64ati1-devel: static libs, GL headers, gamma header > >>If you have something else to suggest, please do so. > > -- Anssi Hannula _______________________________________________ PLF-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://www.zarb.org/mailman/listinfo/plf-discuss
