Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

2007-08-05 Thread Jan Kundrát
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

2007-08-05 Thread Stephen P. Becker
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

2007-08-04 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
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

2007-08-04 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
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

2007-08-04 Thread Mike Frysinger
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

2007-08-04 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
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

2007-08-03 Thread Marijn Schouten (hkBst)

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 closed source driver package foo 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

2007-08-03 Thread Mike Frysinger
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

2007-08-03 Thread Daniel Drake

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 closed source driver package foo 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

2007-08-03 Thread Mike Frysinger
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 closed source driver package foo
  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

2007-08-03 Thread Gustavo Zacarias
-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 closed source driver package foo 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

2007-08-02 Thread federico ferri

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

2007-08-02 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
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

2007-08-02 Thread Mike Frysinger
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

2007-08-02 Thread Donnie Berkholz
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

2007-08-02 Thread Mike Frysinger
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

2007-08-02 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
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

2007-08-02 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
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

2007-08-02 Thread Donnie Berkholz
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

2007-08-02 Thread Donnie Berkholz
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

2007-08-02 Thread Mike Frysinger
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 closed source driver package foo 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

2007-08-02 Thread Donnie Berkholz
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 closed source driver package foo 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

2007-08-01 Thread Chris Gianelloni
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

2007-08-01 Thread Donnie Berkholz
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

2007-08-01 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
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

2007-08-01 Thread Greg KH
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

2007-08-01 Thread Daniel Drake

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

2007-08-01 Thread Homer Parker
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

2007-08-01 Thread Greg KH
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

2007-08-01 Thread Daniel Drake

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

2007-07-31 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
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