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 migh
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
C
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 hardwar
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 s
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
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
-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
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 fo
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,
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 stabili
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
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
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 ha
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
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 Ga
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 solu
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 op
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
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 t
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
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 lik
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 sh
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. B
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'
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
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
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 differe
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 i
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 is
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
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
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 cu
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
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. C
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
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
36 matches
Mail list logo
