Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Arcady Genkin <agenkin-dated-1014007181.4e6186@××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Overhaul of media-gfx/nvidia
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 23:12:14
Message-Id: uobsf525o1.fsf@cdf.toronto.edu
1 I didn't like the way 'nvidia' portage was done, and I ended up
2 re-doing it. In fact, I split it in two portages: nvidia-kernel and
3 nvidia-glx. Since I think that this can cause some controversy, I'd
4 like to discuss it in the mailing list. The ebuilds are available
5 from:
6 http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=517
7
8 My version is better than the current one because:
9
10 1. It's split into two portages. (a) the current
11 version of the kernel driver is 1.0.2314, while the current version of
12 the glx library is 1.0.2313. With the current `nvidia' portage it's
13 unclear which one determines the version of the portage itself. (b) if one
14 compiles a new version of Linux kernel, he only needs to update
15 nvidia-kernel, and leave nvidia-glx untouched.
16
17 2. NVIDIA's own makefile overwrites some of the native files that
18 come with XFree. It upsets me when a package messes with the other
19 package's files, because if I were to update the world, the order of
20 update would determine the state of the system, etc. I decided to put
21 the contents of nvidia-glx into /opt/NVIDIA to make sure that they don't
22 mess with anything else.
23
24 3. nvidia-kernel now creates necessary device nodes.
25
26 4. nvidia-kernel now installs aliases.
27
28 The small downside of the new layout is that the user needs to add a
29 modules path to the Files section in XF86Config.
30
31 Comments?
32 --
33 Arcady Genkin
34 Don't read everything you believe.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Overhaul of media-gfx/nvidia Bart Verwilst <verwilst@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Overhaul of media-gfx/nvidia Martin Schlemmer <azarah@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Overhaul of media-gfx/nvidia Edward Muller <edwardam@××××××××.com>