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 |