On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 01:12 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:54:21 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 13:40 -0500, Peter wrote:
> | > This is because glx has kernel as a dependency. Can't have it both
> | > ways (as someone else here
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:54:21 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 13:40 -0500, Peter wrote:
| > This is because glx has kernel as a dependency. Can't have it both
| > ways (as someone else here pointed out) because you'd have a
| > circular dependency...kernel r
On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 13:40 -0500, Peter wrote:
> This is because glx has kernel as a dependency. Can't have it both ways
> (as someone else here pointed out) because you'd have a circular
> dependency...kernel requires glx, but glx requires kernel which requires
> glx...and around we go.
Why can'
> I _do_ see the argument that including the extra applications could be
> spun off from the main package.
I would appreciate nvidia-settings remaining stand alone, due to this as
of yet unresolved bug:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114649
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:06:43 +0100, Pawe Madej wrote:
> In my opinion if you want to build monolitic ebuild in system like
> gentoo where everything is going to be modular you should try some local
> USE flags for example monolitic to install all the stuff you are puting
> into it and of cours fla
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 18:55, Peter wrote:
> Thanks all for the feedback. It's important to realize that "userland" in
> this case is under 1 minute compile time. One of the modules, glx, doesn't
> even get compiled. A poster on this thread noted that glx took 14
> seconds -- it just copies cl
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:50:16 +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:49:04PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
>> I thought that we (gentoo devs) were trying to split the modules from
>> ebuilds,
>> so that people don't need to waste time with userland when rebuildi
Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten wrote:
> On Saturday 24 December 2005 16:31, Peter wrote:
>> Not really. glx does not compile at all and the entire pkg file has to be
>> extracted. Same amount of files being processed...
> No, because the glx part files needs to be processed by portage, too, and
> that's
fire-eyes wrote:
As an end user, I would prefer the ebuilds kept seperately. Also right
now, nvidia-settings will not compile for some of us, which would result
in a single merge failing:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114649
Looks like I started something. O_O I finally said somet
As an end user, I would prefer the ebuilds kept seperately. Also right
now, nvidia-settings will not compile for some of us, which would result
in a single merge failing:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114649
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Dale wrote:
Niklas Bolander wrote:
On Friday 23 December 2005 20:59, Peter wrote:
I can tell you that I would be disappointed if this replaces the
current
ebuilds, because I really don't need to reinstall nvidia-settings and
nvidia-glx every time I build a new kernel.
That's why we
Peter wrote:
> To Gentoo nVidia users:
>
> We are in the process of developing and testing
> a unified nVidia driver ebuild. When implemented,
> it will replace the nvidia-kernel, nvidia-glx, and
> nvidia-settings ebuilds. It will also add the utility
> nvidia-xconfig.
Well I just wanted to say
Niklas Bolander wrote:
On Friday 23 December 2005 20:59, Peter wrote:
I can tell you that I would be disappointed if this replaces the current
ebuilds, because I really don't need to reinstall nvidia-settings and
nvidia-glx every time I build a new kernel.
That's why we are having th
On Friday 23 December 2005 20:59, Peter wrote:
> > I can tell you that I would be disappointed if this replaces the current
> > ebuilds, because I really don't need to reinstall nvidia-settings and
> > nvidia-glx every time I build a new kernel.
>
> That's why we are having this dialog. When I prop
Sigh...The point was to take 3, potentially 4, ebuilds and make 1.
Well, nvidia-xconfig should probably be part of hte nvidia-settings
ebuild, but I really don't think the drivers and kernel module should be
included. Why not create a meta-ebuild which pulls all of these ebuilds
in, so that
Hi Peter,
On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 14:05 -0500, Peter wrote:
> in any case. By unifying the ebuilds, we are merely duplicating what
> nvidia provides in its install packages. We're not doing anything they
> aren't.
Who is "we" please? As you're a non-dev, it would be polite to
introduce yourself at
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:43:59 -0500, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Since nobody else has asked, I will. What is the point? What problem
> are you trying to solve with this ebuild? As far as I can tell, there
> is no point, other than trying to sound like you are doing something
> important.
Sig
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:47:40 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 12:41:45PM -0500, Peter wrote:
>> We are in the process of developing and testing
>> a unified nVidia driver ebuild. When implemented,
>> it will replace the nvidia-kernel, nvidia-glx, and
>> nvidia-settings ebuil
18 matches
Mail list logo
