Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:26:50 +0200 Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen P. Becker wrote: > > I will say that this is still a better situation than the closed > > drivers, which instantly hard lock my computer the first time I > > exit X after the initial startup. > > Perhaps this might help you -- > http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Problems_with_fglrx#Hardlock_on_X_logout > Nope, I've been through all of that numerous times, read that page and others, and nothing seems to help. -Steve signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
Stephen P. Becker wrote: > I will say that this is still a better situation than the closed > drivers, which instantly hard lock my computer the first time I exit X > after the initial startup. Perhaps this might help you -- http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Problems_with_fglrx#Hardlock_on_X_logout Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 20:35 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Update your knowledge, the normal radeon driver works nice for both. =) I will I was following radeon developmen for a while. But last I looked a few months ago, they were still a ways off from having DRI fully supported with my hardware. Which is now ruffly 2-3 years old Xpress200m. So I am sticking with ati-drivers, and only use radeon if and when I have problems there. Which has been quite some time. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Saturday 04 August 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 00:14 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > my point though wasnt to knock ati (although it was fun), the point was > > that i do not believe any closed source driver in our tree should ever be > > grounds for preventing stabilization of a kernel ebuild > > Yes, I don't like that it's closed source either. But closed or open > source. It seems odd to have packages in our stable tree that don't work > with each other? Doesn't that kinda go against the point of our stable > tree? then dont stabilize the closed source packages, problem solved > I personally don't use genkernel, but I believe those updating their > systems via emerge world, and then running genkernel later against the > new kernel. Will likely have it fail, and then report bugs against our > stable tree. boy thats sure a pickle when we cant do s**t about it (maybe *this* time we can fix it, but that is not always the case) -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 00:14 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 02 August 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 20:05 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > sounds good to me ... so to tie back to the source of the thread, crappy > > > closed source vendor drivers are not a valid reason to hold up > > > stabilization of a kernel > > > > Who ever said they were crappy? Maybe the documentation on usage is > > crappy, but drivers have consistently gotten much better. These days > > pretty solid IMHO for my uses. > > last time i used the drivers they sucked hard ... maybe it's gotten better; i > dont know -- i tossed all my ati in favor of nvidia Well ati's stuff has gotten much better over the last year. But really IMHO from my experience. It's entirely about your xorg.conf. Wrong config or etc and it will totally blow. In that regard nVidia seems to be way more tolerant, and maybe detects stuff at runtime, ati requires to be configed in xorg.conf. > my point though wasnt to knock ati (although it was fun), the point was that > i > do not believe any closed source driver in our tree should ever be grounds > for preventing stabilization of a kernel ebuild Yes, I don't like that it's closed source either. But closed or open source. It seems odd to have packages in our stable tree that don't work with each other? Doesn't that kinda go against the point of our stable tree? I personally don't use genkernel, but I believe those updating their systems via emerge world, and then running genkernel later against the new kernel. Will likely have it fail, and then report bugs against our stable tree. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 20:35 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > FYI, the patches in bug #183480 [1] allow one to use the most current > > ati-drivers with a 2.6.22 kernel. As I am now while I am composing this > > message. Having applied said patches and bumped ebuild locally. Just > > needs to happen in tree :) > > 01 Aug 2007; Jeff Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > +files/8.37.6/fix-ioctl-for-2.6.22.patch, ati-drivers-8.37.6-r1.ebuild: > Add patch to allow compilation with 2.6.22 kernels. See bug #182597. Thanks, hope I didn't come off as bitching about it needing to be committed. Just pointing it out :) But we are all good know, I should have grown a pair and committed it myself :) -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Frysinger wrote: > so next time dsd (or whoever the ninja kernel maintainer happens to be at the > time) says "hey i plan on stabilizing Linux x.y.z" and someone goes "wait, > you cant until we get working", the reply > is of course "blow it out your arse^H^H^H^Htalk to the package maintainer, > this will not hold up stabilization efforts" > -mike They can always use the previous kernel version that worked too, it's not like "OMG BBQ i'm not on the latest bleeding edge version!!one". - -- Gustavo Zacarias Gentoo/SPARC monkey -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGs2nuV3G/IBCn/JARAsaeAJ9i+hH8cv16jRSlMLruC7X8jpG0lACbBxGi N8lgqzbyJUxVokrhWeANtrg= =MTXP -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Friday 03 August 2007, Daniel Drake wrote: > All that aside, my advice for developers considering maintaining kernel > code in portage outside of the kernel still remains as "don't do it". > Your package grows bugs overnight. It's a continual challenge trying to > keep up, and it's a headache for me trying to poke you into action. Or, > if you really must do this, never mark your package stable (that way I > can ignore it). i pity the foo who doesnt listen to dsd ! -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
Donnie Berkholz wrote: so next time dsd (or whoever the ninja kernel maintainer happens to be at the time) says "hey i plan on stabilizing Linux x.y.z" and someone goes "wait, you cant until we get working", the reply is of course "blow it out your arse^H^H^H^Htalk to the package maintainer, this will not hold up stabilization efforts" If we're gonna go with this policy here, I'm also going to adopt it for X so we don't get stuck in limbo as happened fairly recently. This is how it has been for a while, and not only closed source drivers. We have many open source kernel drivers/filesystems in the tree which regularly break with new kernel releases. When these packages break in this way, it is a bug in such packages, not in the kernel. [For those wondering why the kernel keeps changing, see Documentation/stable-api-nonsense.txt : it is by design, maintaining kernel code outside of the kernel is discouraged for this reason, solution is get it in the kernel] Maintainers of these packages got unhappy that they didn't really have warning when new kernels were going stable, so I started announcing that (and usually giving more notice on gentoo-dev than this time around, sorry about that). That helped, but trying to encourage maintainers to fix their stuff every few weeks gets old and some maintainers become less responsive. Kernels go stable anyway and so users complain. I now take it a step further, and create package regression tracker bugs for each kernel release. bug #184683 is the 2.6.22 one, a little smaller than usual. For each bug that gets added to the tracker, I comment on any patches that have been posted (e.g. "that's the correct fix") or if there aren't already patches, I explain how to fix the code based on the compile error. This is work I'd rather not do (I really don't care about your package), but seems to work relatively well. There are times when after I 'approve' a patch, another developer asks me to commit it. I think that's a little unreasonable. I'm not prepared to go *that* far at the moment, especially as I usually can't test the package in question. The model seems to work relatively well. One associated challenge is making sure maintainers fix their packages in the stable tree (not only unstable) before stabilization takes place, but that has certainly been improving lately, e.g. Stefan did a great job fixing up many external wireless drivers this time around, and I didn't have to reopen any of the bugs :) All that aside, my advice for developers considering maintaining kernel code in portage outside of the kernel still remains as "don't do it". Your package grows bugs overnight. It's a continual challenge trying to keep up, and it's a headache for me trying to poke you into action. Or, if you really must do this, never mark your package stable (that way I can ignore it). Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Friday 03 August 2007, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> my point though wasnt to knock ati (although it was fun), the point was > >> that i do not believe any closed source driver in our tree should ever > >> be grounds for preventing stabilization of a kernel ebuild > >> > >> so next time dsd (or whoever the ninja kernel maintainer happens to be > >> at the time) says "hey i plan on stabilizing Linux x.y.z" and someone > >> goes "wait, you cant until we get > >> working", the reply is of course "blow it out your arse^H^H^H^Htalk to > >> the package maintainer, this will not hold up stabilization efforts" > > > > If we're gonna go with this policy here, I'm also going to adopt it for > > X so we don't get stuck in limbo as happened fairly recently. > > If we're going to do this, we should just keep the unfree drivers in > testing. i dont think that logically follows the previous argument -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:35:18 -0700 Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 16:55 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:31:09 -0400 > >> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> if the driver blows dead goats and the vendor isnt willing to help > >>> and no Gentoo dev wants to touch it, what other solution is > >>> there ? > >> There's an open-source driver for the r5xx stuff called the avivo > >> driver [1]. > >> > >> 1. > >> http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=avivo/xf86-video-avivo.git;a=summary > > > > Still leaves a gap, since the open source radeon driver is not fully > > supporting R3xx to my knowledge much less r4xx. > > Update your knowledge, the normal radeon driver works nice for both. > =) I'm not sure I would 100% agree with that. Yeah, it works for most things, but 2D definitely could use some speed improvements (still no Render acceleration), and any recent 3d app that needs some serious horsepower (e.g. doom3) is pretty much useless. In fact, last time I tried to start doom3 using the open source driver, it flat out refused to start. Things like ut2003 and ut2004 are also pretty much unplayable. I will say that this is still a better situation than the closed drivers, which instantly hard lock my computer the first time I exit X after the initial startup. -Steve signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: my point though wasnt to knock ati (although it was fun), the point was that i do not believe any closed source driver in our tree should ever be grounds for preventing stabilization of a kernel ebuild so next time dsd (or whoever the ninja kernel maintainer happens to be at the time) says "hey i plan on stabilizing Linux x.y.z" and someone goes "wait, you cant until we get working", the reply is of course "blow it out your arse^H^H^H^Htalk to the package maintainer, this will not hold up stabilization efforts" If we're gonna go with this policy here, I'm also going to adopt it for X so we don't get stuck in limbo as happened fairly recently. If we're going to do this, we should just keep the unfree drivers in testing. Marijn -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
Mike Frysinger wrote: > my point though wasnt to knock ati (although it was fun), the point was that > i > do not believe any closed source driver in our tree should ever be grounds > for preventing stabilization of a kernel ebuild > > so next time dsd (or whoever the ninja kernel maintainer happens to be at the > time) says "hey i plan on stabilizing Linux x.y.z" and someone goes "wait, > you cant until we get working", the reply > is of course "blow it out your arse^H^H^H^Htalk to the package maintainer, > this will not hold up stabilization efforts" If we're gonna go with this policy here, I'm also going to adopt it for X so we don't get stuck in limbo as happened fairly recently. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Thursday 02 August 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 20:05 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > sounds good to me ... so to tie back to the source of the thread, crappy > > closed source vendor drivers are not a valid reason to hold up > > stabilization of a kernel > > Who ever said they were crappy? Maybe the documentation on usage is > crappy, but drivers have consistently gotten much better. These days > pretty solid IMHO for my uses. last time i used the drivers they sucked hard ... maybe it's gotten better; i dont know -- i tossed all my ati in favor of nvidia my point though wasnt to knock ati (although it was fun), the point was that i do not believe any closed source driver in our tree should ever be grounds for preventing stabilization of a kernel ebuild so next time dsd (or whoever the ninja kernel maintainer happens to be at the time) says "hey i plan on stabilizing Linux x.y.z" and someone goes "wait, you cant until we get working", the reply is of course "blow it out your arse^H^H^H^Htalk to the package maintainer, this will not hold up stabilization efforts" -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > FYI, the patches in bug #183480 [1] allow one to use the most current > ati-drivers with a 2.6.22 kernel. As I am now while I am composing this > message. Having applied said patches and bumped ebuild locally. Just > needs to happen in tree :) 01 Aug 2007; Jeff Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +files/8.37.6/fix-ioctl-for-2.6.22.patch, ati-drivers-8.37.6-r1.ebuild: Add patch to allow compilation with 2.6.22 kernels. See bug #182597. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 16:55 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:31:09 -0400 >> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> if the driver blows dead goats and the vendor isnt willing to help >>> and no Gentoo dev wants to touch it, what other solution is there ? >> There's an open-source driver for the r5xx stuff called the avivo >> driver [1]. >> >> 1. http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=avivo/xf86-video-avivo.git;a=summary > > Still leaves a gap, since the open source radeon driver is not fully > supporting R3xx to my knowledge much less r4xx. Update your knowledge, the normal radeon driver works nice for both. =) Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 16:55 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:31:09 -0400 > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > if the driver blows dead goats and the vendor isnt willing to help > > and no Gentoo dev wants to touch it, what other solution is there ? > > There's an open-source driver for the r5xx stuff called the avivo > driver [1]. > > 1. http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=avivo/xf86-video-avivo.git;a=summary Still leaves a gap, since the open source radeon driver is not fully supporting R3xx to my knowledge much less r4xx. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 20:05 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > sounds good to me ... so to tie back to the source of the thread, crappy > closed source vendor drivers are not a valid reason to hold up stabilization > of a kernel Who ever said they were crappy? Maybe the documentation on usage is crappy, but drivers have consistently gotten much better. These days pretty solid IMHO for my uses. They just did not compile against 2.6.22 due to some files being moved around or etc. I happen to like the drivers, and they are the only thing I can use to get DRI from my hardware. Last I checked there was a version of ati-drivers available for stable systems. So by stabilizing 2.6.22 you will effectively break those systems. Not breakage in portage's eyes, but people upgrading their systems won't be able to run the latest stable kernel with the latest stable ati-drivers. FYI, the patches in bug #183480 [1] allow one to use the most current ati-drivers with a 2.6.22 kernel. As I am now while I am composing this message. Having applied said patches and bumped ebuild locally. Just needs to happen in tree :) 1. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=183480 -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Thursday 02 August 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > if the driver blows dead goats and the vendor isnt willing to help > > and no Gentoo dev wants to touch it, what other solution is there ? > > There's an open-source driver for the r5xx stuff called the avivo > driver [1]. It's still pretty rough, so I haven't packaged it yet. For > anyone interested, it should be pretty easy to make an ebuild for it > based on the xf86-video-ati ebuild and the git eclass. > > For the present, je_fro's picked up ati-drivers and anarchy's been > sending changes for some of the newest stuff. sounds good to me ... so to tie back to the source of the thread, crappy closed source vendor drivers are not a valid reason to hold up stabilization of a kernel if the issue affects you: (1) complain to the vendor (2) help make the package work with the new kernel (3) dont buy the hardware (4) stop bugging the kernel developers (5) give me a hug (6) goto 5 -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:31:09 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > if the driver blows dead goats and the vendor isnt willing to help > and no Gentoo dev wants to touch it, what other solution is there ? There's an open-source driver for the r5xx stuff called the avivo driver [1]. It's still pretty rough, so I haven't packaged it yet. For anyone interested, it should be pretty easy to make an ebuild for it based on the xf86-video-ati ebuild and the git eclass. For the present, je_fro's picked up ati-drivers and anarchy's been sending changes for some of the newest stuff. Thanks, Donnie 1. http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=avivo/xf86-video-avivo.git;a=summary signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Wednesday 01 August 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 09:54 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > This is for the very short > > term. I don't want to maintain a driver for hardware I don't own and > > never intend on purchasing. > > Well seems most AMD machines are likely to ship with ATI chipsets these > days. For sure most lappies :) maybe, but irrelevant i think if the driver blows dead goats and the vendor isnt willing to help and no Gentoo dev wants to touch it, what other solution is there ? -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 20:09 +0200, federico ferri wrote: > William L. Thomson Jr. ha scritto: > >> This is for the very short > >> term. I don't want to maintain a driver for hardware I don't own and > >> never intend on purchasing. > >> > > > > Well seems most AMD machines are likely to ship with ATI chipsets these > > days. For sure most lappies :) > > > > Interesting side note. Beryl/Xgl works on my laptop, ATI Xpress200m. > cool... would you like to write a pair of lines describing the process, > software (ebuilds) versions used, tips and quirks? Yeah I might see about documenting it at some point, but I basically just followed the wiki. Although it's still a little quirky wrt to starting beryl-xgl, and beryl-manager during log in. But that kinda gives me a choice when I log in to start metacity or beryl :) > cause I tried many > time but always failes someway, so that I started to think ati-drivers > for X200M are bork :S Nah, it's all about your config. If that sucker is not dialed in it will blow. It took me forever to get mine to where it's at. Still some stuff left like dialing in dual monitors and etc. Here is my current xorg.conf. It's still kinda a mess, but should help out. http://dev.gentoo.org/~wltjr/misc/xpress200m_xorg.conf -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
William L. Thomson Jr. ha scritto: This is for the very short term. I don't want to maintain a driver for hardware I don't own and never intend on purchasing. Well seems most AMD machines are likely to ship with ATI chipsets these days. For sure most lappies :) Interesting side note. Beryl/Xgl works on my laptop, ATI Xpress200m. cool... would you like to write a pair of lines describing the process, software (ebuilds) versions used, tips and quirks? cause I tried many time but always failes someway, so that I started to think ati-drivers for X200M are bork :S -- 0xff -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
Greg KH wrote: Ok, thanks for pointing me at this. I've already started discussing this with a few of the users on that list. I tried a number of years to get this code into shape enough to get into the main kernel tree. Looks like I'll try this again. Let me know if anything comes of it. I'm interested in helping development again, but don't presently have enough time to do the restructuring needed now. Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 06:35:04PM -0400, Daniel Drake wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > Is speakup finally dropped from the gentoo tree in this release? > > Yes > > > Was there a reason for this? > > It no longer compiles, as the legacy way of accessing serial ports > disappeared, serial is now a platform device. I can't see an easy fix. > > It may return in future, in a different form. I suggested some future > direction here: > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/pipermail/speakup/2007-July/044137.html Ok, thanks for pointing me at this. I've already started discussing this with a few of the users on that list. I tried a number of years to get this code into shape enough to get into the main kernel tree. Looks like I'll try this again. thanks, greg k-h -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 09:54 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > No, seriously. If this is holding us back, I'll do the commits > provided > I can find people to help me with testing. This is for the very short > term. I don't want to maintain a driver for hardware I don't own and > never intend on purchasing. I'm running it on my laptop with a 9600/9700 Mobility (it has an identity crisis I guess)... Works fine after applying the patch.. -- Homer Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
Greg KH wrote: Is speakup finally dropped from the gentoo tree in this release? Yes Was there a reason for this? It no longer compiles, as the legacy way of accessing serial ports disappeared, serial is now a platform device. I can't see an easy fix. It may return in future, in a different form. I suggested some future direction here: http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/pipermail/speakup/2007-July/044137.html Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 07:35:16PM -0400, Daniel Drake wrote: > On Thursday I plan to request that the x86 and amd64 arch teams mark the > latest gentoo-sources-2.6.22 revision stable. We have no reported > regressions for this kernel release. Is speakup finally dropped from the gentoo tree in this release? Was there a reason for this? thanks, greg k-h -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 09:54 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > If this is holding us back, I'll do the commits provided > I can find people to help me with testing. I am willing to help. I got a 2.6.22 kernel I want to boot to test out the new mac80211 stuff vs the older softmac. The ati-driver issue is the only thing holding me back. Just haven't had a chance to apply patches per bug, and bump ebuild locally to test. If it's in an overlay, or tree, surely happy to sync and test :) > This is for the very short > term. I don't want to maintain a driver for hardware I don't own and > never intend on purchasing. Well seems most AMD machines are likely to ship with ATI chipsets these days. For sure most lappies :) Interesting side note. Beryl/Xgl works on my laptop, ATI Xpress200m. Had it working once on my two workstations. Both with nVidia chipsets, and nothing special, but nothing that old either. First time I have had more problems with nVidia vs ATI. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
Doug Goldstein wrote: > There are no maintainers of ati-drivers. So you're not prodding anyone. Luca? Did you stop maintaining it? Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 09:36 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: > Daniel Drake wrote: > > William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > >> I haven't been able to get ati-drivers to compile against a 2.6.22 > >> kernel. Seems to be for similar reasons as > >> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181982 > >> > >> error: linux/ioctl32.h: No such file or directory > > > > I already approved a patch against current stable for this: > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182597 > > > > Theres only so much I can do... Any help prodding the maintainers is > > appreciated. > > > > Daniel > There are no maintainers of ati-drivers. So you're not prodding anyone. Unmaintained and broken... sounds like a candidate for removal. NVIDIA FTW!!! *grin* No, seriously. If this is holding us back, I'll do the commits provided I can find people to help me with testing. This is for the very short term. I don't want to maintain a driver for hardware I don't own and never intend on purchasing. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
Daniel Drake wrote: William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: I haven't been able to get ati-drivers to compile against a 2.6.22 kernel. Seems to be for similar reasons as http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181982 error: linux/ioctl32.h: No such file or directory I already approved a patch against current stable for this: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182597 Theres only so much I can do... Any help prodding the maintainers is appreciated. Daniel There are no maintainers of ati-drivers. So you're not prodding anyone. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: I haven't been able to get ati-drivers to compile against a 2.6.22 kernel. Seems to be for similar reasons as http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181982 error: linux/ioctl32.h: No such file or directory I already approved a patch against current stable for this: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182597 Theres only so much I can do... Any help prodding the maintainers is appreciated. Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: Not sure if bumping the ati-drivers package will address that. But I could see that potentially being a problem for 2.6.22 stabilization. ati-drivers is a couple of releases behind in the tree - the latest versions have been fixed to work with kernel 2.6.22. Check out http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=183480 j. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 19:35 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote: > On Thursday I plan to request that the x86 and amd64 arch teams mark the > latest gentoo-sources-2.6.22 revision stable. We have no reported > regressions for this kernel release. I haven't been able to get ati-drivers to compile against a 2.6.22 kernel. Seems to be for similar reasons as http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181982 error: linux/ioctl32.h: No such file or directory Not sure if bumping the ati-drivers package will address that. But I could see that potentially being a problem for 2.6.22 stabilization. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans
On Thursday I plan to request that the x86 and amd64 arch teams mark the latest gentoo-sources-2.6.22 revision stable. We have no reported regressions for this kernel release. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
