1 |
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:47:40 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 12:41:45PM -0500, Peter wrote: |
4 |
>> We are in the process of developing and testing |
5 |
>> a unified nVidia driver ebuild. When implemented, |
6 |
>> it will replace the nvidia-kernel, nvidia-glx, and |
7 |
>> nvidia-settings ebuilds. It will also add the utility |
8 |
>> nvidia-xconfig. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> issues: |
11 |
> - people rebuild nvidia-kernel when they upgrade/change their kernel |
12 |
> version; rebuilding the other packages in this case is pointless |
13 |
> - nvidia-kernel/nvidia-glx may be released in parallel, but |
14 |
> the nvidia-settings package is not last i checked (never even heard |
15 |
> of nvidia-xconfig) ... whats the point in unifying things when they |
16 |
> arent the same version ... you'll hit the same issue as above, if |
17 |
> a new version of nvidia-settings is put out, people will have to |
18 |
> pointlessly rebuild the other nvidia packages |
19 |
> -mike |
20 |
|
21 |
All noted. nvidia-settings and -xconfig are included in binary form with |
22 |
the pkg?.run files. -xconfig is married to a particular version of the |
23 |
driver. Settings too will change rarely, if at all, without a driver |
24 |
update. |
25 |
|
26 |
Total compile time, as noted in the bug report, for me was 1' 10" using an |
27 |
XP 2500 oc'ed to 2800. The glx modules don't compile at all since they're |
28 |
not open source. Updating only kernel, and not glx is a dangerous business |
29 |
in any case. By unifying the ebuilds, we are merely duplicating what |
30 |
nvidia provides in its install packages. We're not doing anything they |
31 |
aren't. |
32 |
|
33 |
FWIW, I have already contacted upstream and suggested _strongly_ that they |
34 |
include the source for settings and xconfig with the pkg?.run files. |
35 |
|
36 |
Your feedback is appreciated. Please post to the bug report any additional |
37 |
comments. |
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |