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 proposed
On Saturday 24 December 2005 12:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:50:33 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| SLOT is currently an arbitrary string (without spaces) so general
| matching of * might be useful. Of course, there's no restriction of
| not using * in SLOTs
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
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 00:49:35 +0100, Joshua Baergen wrote:
As many of you no doubt have noticed, spyderous and I finished bumping
the modular packages to the newly released 7.0, which includes many
changes and bug fixes since 6.8.2. Over the next few weeks we'll be
finalizing licenses
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 thanks
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 10:31:25AM +0100, Alexandre Buisse wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 00:49:35 +0100, Joshua Baergen wrote:
As many of you no doubt have noticed, spyderous and I finished bumping
the modular packages to the newly released 7.0, which includes many
changes and bug
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:52:46 +0100
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, if the binaries are not stripped, they consume more memory.
I'm still convinced this is untrue (apart from disk space). Debug
symbols are not part of the executable view. The kernel loader map
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:16:53 -0600, Dale wrote:
Niklas Bolander wrote:
snip...
I have to agree. Do it sort of like KDE, with kde, kde-meta or as
seperate packages. Have it so you can pull in all three in one emerge
command but have the option to do it seperately as well. I have only
On Saturday 24 December 2005 12:37, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
I'm still convinced this is untrue (apart from disk space).
IIRC was solar who said some time ago that executables are mmapped before the
sections to load are loaded.
And when I was using non-stripped binaries, I had less free memory than
On Saturday 24 December 2005 12:34, Peter wrote:
THAT is a very reasonable comment!
Not at all. Meta ebuilds are a provisional and fugly workaround as long as
we have to wait for proper sets and only to be used for a larger set of
packages. Wrapping three or four ebuilds with another one, just
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:09:36 +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Saturday 24 December 2005 12:34, Peter wrote:
THAT is a very reasonable comment!
Not at all. Meta ebuilds are a provisional and fugly workaround as long as
we have to wait for proper sets and only to be used for a larger set of
On Saturday 24 December 2005 13:50, Peter wrote:
Also, I find it absolutely fascinating that the only people against this
concept are devs, and the only people for it are users. Remember that
users are your customers. Every effort should be made to keep them happy.
Considering that we aren't
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:50:51AM -0500, Peter wrote:
Also, I find it absolutely fascinating that the only people against this
concept are devs, and the only people for it are users. Remember that
users are your customers. Every effort should be made to keep them happy.
customer
n
On Saturday 24 December 2005 13:50, Peter wrote:
Would you please add the comments to the bug report? Or, may I copy them?
Please advise.
Feel free to do so.
Also, I find it absolutely fascinating that the only people against this
concept are devs, and the only people for it are users.
On 12/24/05, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:09:36 +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Saturday 24 December 2005 12:34, Peter wrote:
THAT is a very reasonable comment!
Not at all. Meta ebuilds are a provisional and fugly workaround as long as
we have to wait for
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 14:09:01 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
snip...
nVidia upstream combines all the products together
in their .run files. There is minimal time difference between having the
entire suite installed versus each one individually.
Well depends how you see it.
If you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthias Langer skrev:
I'm just a more or less simple user of gentoo who somtimes tries to look
a bit behind the curtain, so if you think this posting doesn't belong to
gentoo-dev let me know.
However, maybe this is interesting to you:
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 something that takes time, especially
Peter Cech wrote:
I solved my problems by commenting RgbPath setting in xorg.conf. I would
suggest the line with RgbPath is commented in xorg.conf.example.
While I'll respond here, it's generally better to post these sorts of
issues on bugs.gentoo.org (searching first!), as they don't really
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:57:30 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Heh. Yep, that's another one. Checking with a quick script, it seems
| that there are 478 unique SLOTs and the regex [a-zA-Z0-9\._\-]*
| matches them all. Perhaps it would be worthwhile locking it down to
| those characters
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:56:37 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| It's really pretty simple- get off your butt and chip in if you want
| it, else you're on _our_ timeline (eg, we implement it when we deem
| it sane/ready to go).
Is Portage development done to support the needs of those
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 07:50:51 -0500 Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Also, I find it absolutely fascinating that the only people against
| this concept are devs, and the only people for it are users. Remember
| that users are your customers. Every effort should be made to keep
| them happy.
Hardly
On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:56:37 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| It's really pretty simple- get off your butt and chip in if you want
| it, else you're on _our_ timeline (eg, we implement it when we deem
| it sane/ready to go).
On Saturday 24 December 2005 10:43, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
Is there any reason for not doing this, and then recommend that the
users that don't use udev/devfs to run MAKEDEV ?
because the process can easily go wrong leaving new users without a clue of
whats going on
-mike
--
Peter wrote:
Also, I find it absolutely fascinating that the only people against this
concept are devs, and the only people for it are users.
Please see Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (for those
using MUAs that suck, it's Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:16:53 -0600,
From: Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] in
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
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
I'm just a user, but I personally would prefer the three separate ebuilds. If a
meta-ebuild was included as an additional way to build, that'd be fine. I
update whenever a new version comes out, but only build -kernel after updating
the kernel. This makes sense as being the most efficient way to
Dan Meltzer wrote:
On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:56:37 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| It's really pretty simple- get off your butt and chip in if you want
| it, else you're on _our_ timeline (eg, we implement it when we deem
| it
On 12/24/05, Curtis Napier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Meltzer wrote:
On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:56:37 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| It's really pretty simple- get off your butt and chip in if you want
| it, else you're
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
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 05:33:06PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:56:37 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| It's really pretty simple- get off your butt and chip in if you want
| it, else you're on _our_ timeline (eg, we implement it when we deem
| it
earily today i updated the ebuilds for mac and xmms-mac,
for those that dont know their applications for monkey's audio (.ape files),
and got them submited to bug 94477[1] which was closed
due to the way the licence was done
my issue is i think the ebuilds should be commited to portage
as i dont
25.12.2005, 3:11:53, Bret Towe wrote:
i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev thinks
that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding it, not
forcing their ideals onto the user if i wanted that i would run debian
Erm, we are not forcing our ideal on
License in question...
http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=35862action=view
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 06:11:53PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
earily today i updated the ebuilds for mac and xmms-mac,
for those that dont know their applications for monkey's audio (.ape files),
and got them
This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous license
(when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several
months ago.
Carsten
[1] http://tinyurl.com/9oxgc
pgpHcVb3ubq0c.pgp
Description: PGP signature
25.12.2005, 3:51:15, Brian Harring wrote:
Jakub responded in this thread about shipping a crap license... imo,
that's not the issue.
The issue is that we would be knowingly violating a license (however
horrid the license is).
Two routes out of this- clean room reimplementation of the
On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous license
(when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several
months ago.
im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous licence
On 12/24/05, Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
License in question...
http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=35862action=view
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 06:11:53PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
earily today i updated the ebuilds for mac and xmms-mac,
for those that dont know their
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a
| ridiculous license (when you want to see it as one) we had a short
| discussion¹ about several months ago.
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:17:05PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous
license
(when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several
months ago.
im sorry
On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 19:17 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous
license
(when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several
months ago.
im sorry i fail
25.12.2005, 4:17:05, Bret Towe wrote:
On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous
license
(when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion1 about several
months ago.
im sorry i fail to see how
On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a
| ridiculous license (when you want to see it as
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:22:50PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev
thinks that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding
it, not forcing their ideals onto the user
if i wanted that i would run debian
See above,
On 12/24/05, Daniel Ostrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 19:17 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous
license
(when you want to see it as one) we had a short
Bret Towe wrote:
On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous license
(when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several
months ago.
im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement
On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 19:35 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of
On 12/24/05, Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:22:50PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev
thinks that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding
it, not forcing their ideals onto the
On 12/24/05, Daniel Ostrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 19:35 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:32:03 -0500 Daniel Ostrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| What you are missing is that Gentoo (the foundation) is legally
| culpable for making sure that none of the packages that we provide in
| our tree violate any form of license. If we shipped these e-builds
| then the
On Sunday 25 December 2005 02:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:56:37 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| It's really pretty simple- get off your butt and chip in if you want
| it, else you're on _our_ timeline (eg, we implement it when we deem
| it sane/ready to
52 matches
Mail list logo
