Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] xorg-server 1.0.99/1.1 ABI break
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:48:12
Message-Id: 4443FDF4.9000800@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] xorg-server 1.0.99/1.1 ABI break by Thomas de Grenier de Latour
1 Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
2 > What about a big PDEPEND in xorg-server-1.1 ebuild, with a bunch of
3 > "video_cards_foobar? ( >=x11-drivers/xf86-video-foobar-NewVersion )"?
4 > That should be enough to force a smooth update of the video drivers
5 > after the server. And, the RDEPEND on video drivers could be removed
6 > from the xorg-x11 meta-ebuild, to avoid redundancy.
7
8 That's a very reasonable idea in the current situation. The problem is
9 that the xorg-server ebuild will begin building more and more X servers
10 based on various combinations of USE flags. For example, kdrive will be
11 part of xorg-server 1.1. Xgl will likely be part of xorg-server 1.2.
12 Already we've got Xdmx, Xnest, Xorg and Xvfb.
13
14 Clearly one may desire to install only a certain set of these servers.
15 Right now, my working copy has it set up so that USE=minimal in
16 combination with USE=(dmx|kdrive|xgl|other group of servers) causes the
17 Xorg server to not get built. But expressing that in RDEPEND gets quite
18 complex.
19
20 Perhaps the "minimal" flag is the wrong way to go, and instead I should
21 add a "xorg" flag that defaults on to build the Xorg server. That
22 approach would allow for a reasonably simple expression of the driver
23 PDEPENDs inside like this: "xorg? ( driver list )".
24
25 > Sure, it doesn't help users who have manually emerged some drivers
26 > without listing them all in $VIDEO_CARDS: they will still be able to
27 > update their server and keep some old broken drivers behind. But
28 > hopefully, they won't be so numerous (much less numerous than those who
29 > would be annoyed by some "!<..." block imho).
30
31 A valid problem with this approach. Is requiring everyone to unmerge
32 drivers a worse solution than breaking some people who emerged drivers
33 directly?
34
35 Thanks,
36 Donnie
37 --
38 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] xorg-server 1.0.99/1.1 ABI break Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] xorg-server 1.0.99/1.1 ABI break Thomas de Grenier de Latour <degrenier@×××××××××××.fr>