| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> There's no requirement to recompile xfree unless you _need_ a feature of |
| 3 |
> the newer synaptics driver. Yes it is nice to have the latest version, |
| 4 |
> but there's no purpose unless you require a fix in it. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
The feature I need is for it to work with 2.6.0-test8 which .13 doesn't. |
| 7 |
I wasn't sure if .14 did, but I'm building it now to test. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> I'm glad you can appreciate my counterargument. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Always. It's silly to debate (or argue, or whatever) and not listen. |
| 12 |
That's like fighting with a goldfish - fun, but it never gets you anywhere. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> There is nearly zero maintenance cost within the xfree ebuild for the |
| 15 |
> synaptics driver (simply change the driver version and go), and similar |
| 16 |
> holds true for the ebuild. I expect any extra maintenance caused between |
| 17 |
> 13 October (when I committed synaptics) and whenever 4.3.99.15 is |
| 18 |
> released to be negligible. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
What I meant by easier to maintain is simply remembering to bump the |
| 21 |
version number in the SYNDRV="xx" line (or whatever the variable is called). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
>>There is also the fact that xfree 4.3.99.* is still |
| 24 |
>>masked so I didn't think releasing a new version of the ebuild would be |
| 25 |
>>a big deal as it is uber-unstable. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> In actuality, it is not uber-unstable. I've been running 4.3.99.x for a |
| 28 |
> fair while and have yet to encounter a crash that is 4.3.99.x-specific. |
| 29 |
> It's masked by virtue of being a development series. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I didn't mean unstable as in code, but in name. I was assuming that many |
| 32 |
gentoo-ers (at least the ones that frequent freenode's #gentoo) do not |
| 33 |
unmask hard-masked items like the .99 series of xfree86. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
>>It's rather subjective, and as someone who has to use the combination in |
| 36 |
>>question (xfree 4.3.99.x, synaptics, and the 2.6 kernel series (due to |
| 37 |
>>an IGP320M chipset)), it would be easier to have the xfree ebuild use |
| 38 |
>>the synaptics ebuild rather than pull it in itself. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> You don't need to use 2.6 for IGP chipsets. See the 2.4 patches: |
| 41 |
> http://bugs.xfree86.org/show_bug.cgi?id=314 |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
The 2.4 patches never worked on this laptop, so in fact, I do. |
| 44 |
(HP 4420, ATI Radeon Mobility, AMD 2200M) |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
>>It's not that big of |
| 47 |
>>a deal, really. I can do it and just use it in PORTAGE_OVERLAY if it's |
| 48 |
>>not something that gentoo is interested in. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> This isn't Gentoo, this is me. You're welcome to grab the 4.3.99.14-r1 |
| 51 |
> ebuild from my overlay if you choose [1], but I don't consider it |
| 52 |
> appropriate for committing. Emerge it with `INPUT_DEVICES="synaptics" |
| 53 |
> emerge xfree` or preferably set INPUT_DEVICES in make.conf. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> 1. http://dev.gentoo.org/~spyderous/overlay/ |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
By "gentoo" I meant the maintainer of the ebuild and by maintainer of |
| 58 |
the ebuild, I meant you. Sorry for the confusion. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Not a big deal either way. Thanks, in any event. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
Eric Sammer |
| 64 |
eric@××××××××××××.com |
| 65 |
http://www.ineoconcepts.com |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
-- |
| 69 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives