On 4/13/11 11:58 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
In the interests of general public enlightenment, it would've been nice
if you'd answered KK's question what am I missing, i.e., where's the
magic bit which makes llvmpipe the default? Knowledge is always a good
thing :)
The specfile contains this
On 04/12/2011 06:12 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
There are two major package classes in Fedora that provide graphics
drivers: xorg-x11-drv-*, and mesa-dri-drivers-*.
In F15, mesa-dri-drivers now only includes drivers with DRI2 support
(radeon, nvidia, intel) and the software renderer; if you want
On 4/13/11 5:14 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
On 04/12/2011 06:12 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
ast, ati, cirrus, fbdev, geode, intel, mga, nouveau, openchrome,
qxl, sis/xgi, vesa, vmware
Would this affect the way KVM and specifically qemu-kvm in it's default
setup for video using the cirrus driver
Adam Jackson (a...@redhat.com) said:
On 4/13/11 5:14 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
On 04/12/2011 06:12 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
ast, ati, cirrus, fbdev, geode, intel, mga, nouveau, openchrome,
qxl, sis/xgi, vesa, vmware
Would this affect the way KVM and specifically qemu-kvm in it's default
On 4/13/11 9:09 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
... should we work on making qemu/kvm default to something more modern/sane?
(qxl, vmware?) Does it not end up mattering (or do we need cirrus for
legacy OS support)?
It ends up being a function of the guest OS - vmware's Windows driver
will refuse
Dne 12.4.2011 18:12, Adam Jackson napsal(a):
negative.) The list of video drivers that see any actual use is
probably something like:
ast, ati, cirrus, fbdev, geode, intel, mga, nouveau, openchrome,
qxl, sis/xgi, vesa, vmware
A word from your Xorg bugmaster. I think even this list
On 04/13/2011 03:10 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 4/13/11 9:09 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
... should we work on making qemu/kvm default to something more
modern/sane?
(qxl, vmware?) Does it not end up mattering (or do we need cirrus for
legacy OS support)?
It ends up being a function of the
On 4/13/11 11:02 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
On 04/13/2011 03:10 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 4/13/11 9:09 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
... should we work on making qemu/kvm default to something more
modern/sane?
(qxl, vmware?) Does it not end up mattering (or do we need cirrus for
legacy OS
On 4/13/11 10:25 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Dne 12.4.2011 18:12, Adam Jackson napsal(a):
negative.) The list of video drivers that see any actual use is
probably something like:
ast, ati, cirrus, fbdev, geode, intel, mga, nouveau, openchrome,
qxl, sis/xgi, vesa, vmware
A word from
On 4/12/11 11:58 PM, John Reiser wrote:
On 04/12/2011 09:12 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Basically all of this hardware is, ahem, inept. The most featureful
device supported by these drivers would be the MGA G550, which just
barely manages to do DirectX 7 (comparable to a Radeon 7000 or GeForce
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:38 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 12:23 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Adam Jackson (a...@redhat.com) said:
So that's the rough plan. Comments appreciated if I'm overlooking
anything.
The question would be how we ensure that these
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:17 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 09:34 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 12:12 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
And input is even briefer (evdev, synaptics, wacom, vmmouse). I'd like
to chop the -drivers metapackage down to just
Adam Jackson wrote:
On 4/12/11 11:58 PM, John Reiser wrote:
On 04/12/2011 09:12 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
For comparison, the baseline for the GPU in the phone in your pocket -
and that platform layers like clutter more or less expect - is GLES 2.0,
which is roughly comparable to DirectX 9.
On 4/13/11 5:43 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Will F16 finally ship the llvmpipe as the default software renderer?
If by F16, you mean F15, then yes.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/Xorg
- ajax
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Adam Jackson wrote:
On 4/13/11 5:43 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Will F16 finally ship the llvmpipe as the default software renderer?
If by F16, you mean F15, then yes.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/Xorg
Hmmm, really?
When I look at upstream mesa's code, I see this:
On 4/13/11 7:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Jackson wrote:
On 4/13/11 5:43 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Will F16 finally ship the llvmpipe as the default software renderer?
If by F16, you mean F15, then yes.
Hmmm, really?
I don't know. Let's ask the machine:
synephrine:~% DISPLAY=:0
On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 19:57 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 4/13/11 7:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Jackson wrote:
On 4/13/11 5:43 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Will F16 finally ship the llvmpipe as the default software renderer?
If by F16, you mean F15, then yes.
Hmmm, really?
I don't
There are two major package classes in Fedora that provide graphics
drivers: xorg-x11-drv-*, and mesa-dri-drivers-*.
In F15, mesa-dri-drivers now only includes drivers with DRI2 support
(radeon, nvidia, intel) and the software renderer; if you want all the
older drivers you have to install
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 12:12 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
And input is even briefer (evdev, synaptics, wacom, vmmouse). I'd like
to chop the -drivers metapackage down to just this set, and either make
a new metapackage
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 09:34 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 12:12 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
And input is even briefer (evdev, synaptics, wacom, vmmouse). I'd like
to chop the -drivers metapackage down to just this set, and either make
a new metapackage in optional
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 12:23 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Adam Jackson (a...@redhat.com) said:
So that's the rough plan. Comments appreciated if I'm overlooking
anything.
The question would be how we ensure that these additional drivers are in the
install image, or in the installed
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:38 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 12:23 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Adam Jackson (a...@redhat.com) said:
So that's the rough plan. Comments appreciated if I'm overlooking
anything.
The question would be how we ensure that these
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 01:48:19PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
With this approach, you have lost a critical feature: the ability for
you to change your hardware (or move the software bits to a different
computer) and have everything automatically work.
Nathaniel
You lose it for a
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:48 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:38 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
But then, if we had _that_, comps could grow a fourth class for
as-needed and we'd just list all driver packages there, including cups
and webcam drivers and etc. Install
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:57 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 01:48:19PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
With this approach, you have lost a critical feature: the ability for
you to change your hardware (or move the software bits to a different
computer) and have
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 14:00 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:48 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:38 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
But then, if we had _that_, comps could grow a fourth class for
as-needed and we'd just list all driver packages
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 01:48:19PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
With this approach, you have lost a critical feature: the ability for
you to change your hardware (or move the software bits to a different
computer) and have everything automatically work.
You change the card, the system
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 02:01:26PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:57 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 01:48:19PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
With this approach, you have lost a critical feature: the ability for
you to change your
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 19:06 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 01:48:19PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
With this approach, you have lost a critical feature: the ability for
you to change your hardware (or move the software bits to a different
computer) and have
On 04/12/2011 01:38 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 12:23 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Adam Jackson (a...@redhat.com) said:
So that's the rough plan. Comments appreciated if I'm overlooking
anything.
The question would be how we ensure that these additional drivers are in the
Once upon a time, Nathaniel McCallum nathan...@natemccallum.com said:
With this approach, you have lost a critical feature: the ability for
you to change your hardware (or move the software bits to a different
computer) and have everything automatically work.
That has been the case off and on
Once upon a time, Jeff Garzik jgar...@pobox.com said:
Data centers have /plenty/ of ancient video solutions out there, and
basic video support is needed.
How many data centers run X on servers? I know I don't; they all boot
runlevel 3 and just have a serial console (KVM switches are for
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 19:06 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 01:48:19PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
With this approach, you have lost a critical feature: the ability for
you to change your hardware (or move the software bits to a different
computer) and have
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:18 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Nathaniel McCallum nathan...@natemccallum.com said:
With this approach, you have lost a critical feature: the ability for
you to change your hardware (or move the software bits to a different
computer) and have
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 02:09:06PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
Limited to video drivers? yes. I just can't help but think that some
will be unable to resist the temptation to do the same thing for
firmware. In this case, pk will happily notify you, but you won't have
access to the repo
Hello Nathaniel,
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 2:01:26 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:57 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 01:48:19PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
With this approach, you have lost a critical feature: the ability for
you to
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 3:04:36 PM, I wrote:
For the Intel arches, it may make sense to have all kinds of X drivers
available by default. For the secondary arches, the user requirements
and physical environment.
Brain fart - I meant to say and physical environment differ.
Al
--
devel
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 14:16 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
While I don't care about accelerated X support, this hardware darned
well better continue working in an it works 2D display mode. VESA or
whatever is fine.
You'll notice I included vesa in the standard list. Not that vesa works
very
On 04/12/2011 03:34 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 14:16 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
While I don't care about accelerated X support, this hardware darned
well better continue working in an it works 2D display mode. VESA or
whatever is fine.
You'll notice I included vesa in the
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:16:45 +0200, Jeff Garzik wrote:
While I don't care about accelerated X support, this hardware darned
well better continue working in an it works 2D display mode. VESA or
whatever is fine.
VESA is not fine, ancient Free drivers are debuggable code when something
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:02:33PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:16:45 +0200, Jeff Garzik wrote:
While I don't care about accelerated X support, this hardware darned
well better continue working in an it works 2D display mode. VESA or
whatever is fine.
VESA is
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:19 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Jeff Garzik jgar...@pobox.com said:
Data centers have /plenty/ of ancient video solutions out there, and
basic video support is needed.
How many data centers run X on servers? I know I don't; they all boot
runlevel
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:09:36 +0200, Matthew Garrett wrote:
In any case, it's vital that VESA work given that it's the only
way to bring up hardware that's newer than the install image -
increasing its test coverage can only be a good thing.
It does not make sense to test VESA as we cannot
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 04:03:48AM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:09:36 +0200, Matthew Garrett wrote:
In any case, it's vital that VESA work given that it's the only
way to bring up hardware that's newer than the install image -
increasing its test coverage can only
On 04/12/2011 09:12 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
There are two major package classes in Fedora that provide graphics
drivers: xorg-x11-drv-*, and mesa-dri-drivers-*.
In F15, mesa-dri-drivers now only includes drivers with DRI2 support
(radeon, nvidia, intel) and the software renderer; if you want
45 matches
Mail list logo
