Le vendredi 14 juillet 2006 à 21:35 +0300, Anssi Hannula a écrit : > 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.
if the software is packaged as a rpm, of course > 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? Yes. I really think people should learn that running 32 bits packages requires 32 bits rpm sources. > 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." no, i doubt, as people never read docs :) > > 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. not in cooker, or it was changed ? I think it is due to the fact OpenOffice depend on it as a 32 bits application, so this may be removed in a near future, if oo is compiled on x86_64 > 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 this one is ok for me, as long as lib$DRIVER-gl1 is only pulled by the meta package. Some people prefer having only 64 bits packages. And i think we should avoid exception for naming, as we may rely on it for various things. > > > > >>If you have something else to suggest, please do so. > > > > > -- Michael Scherer _______________________________________________ PLF-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://www.zarb.org/mailman/listinfo/plf-discuss
