Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
>> This also means that all binary drivers (nvidia, ati, etc) will be
>> broken with xorg-server 1.1 and RC's until their upstream vendor
>> provides a compatible update.
>
> Do you know whether these upstream vendors (I am interested in nVidia
Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
> This also means that all binary drivers (nvidia, ati, etc) will be
> broken with xorg-server 1.1 and RC's until their upstream vendor
> provides a compatible update.
Do you know whether these upstream vendors (I am interested in nVidia
mostly) plan to release new drive
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:48:07 -0700,
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - at the opposite of the xorg-x11 meta ebuild, a pkg_setup check
> > xorg-server ("if hasq ati $VIDEO_CARDS; then eerror ...") makes
> > sense, since it would die at the right time, before the drivers
> > updates.
Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> So imho, that's a lot of unlikely conditions one should join to end
> with broken drivers, and i don't think you should care too much about
> it.
Thanks for your input.
> The ati --> {mach64,radeon,r128} change may make some of the above more
> likely to happe
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:43:32 -0700,
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is requiring everyone to unmerge drivers a worse solution than
> breaking some people who emerged drivers directly?
Depends how many people are on each side i guess. But here, i would
expect really very few people to
A valid problem with this approach. Is requiring everyone to unmerge
drivers a worse solution than breaking some people who emerged drivers
directly?
I very much dislike making people unmerge things. It's not intuitive
for anyone, having to remove the old program to upgrade a dependency
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Olivier Crête wrote:
On Mon, 2006-17-04 at 13:05 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Alec Warner wrote:
Well the semantics of the blocker is that the new driver won't work
with the old server; is that true? Or just the old drivers won't
work with the new server?
New ser
Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
What about a big PDEPEND in xorg-server-1.1 ebuild, with a bunch of
"video_cards_foobar? ( >=x11-drivers/xf86-video-foobar-NewVersion )"?
That should be enough to force a smooth update of the video drivers
after the server. And, the RDEPEND on video drivers coul
On Monday 17 April 2006 22:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
> Then you should probably has new drivers block old servers and new
> servers block old drivers...
Better have new drivers depend on new server rather...
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/F
Olivier Crête wrote:
On Mon, 2006-17-04 at 13:05 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Alec Warner wrote:
Well the semantics of the blocker is that the new driver won't work with
the old server; is that true? Or just the old drivers won't work with
the new server?
New server requires new drivers. Old
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 09:19:48 -0700,
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Stelling wrote:
> > Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> >> We are working to ensure the dependencies work as smoothly as
> >> possible, but I expect there will be some issues since it's
> >> difficult to require updates to
On Mon, 2006-17-04 at 13:05 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Alec Warner wrote:
> > Well the semantics of the blocker is that the new driver won't work with
> > the old server; is that true? Or just the old drivers won't work with
> > the new server?
>
> New server requires new drivers. Old serv
Alec Warner wrote:
Well the semantics of the blocker is that the new driver won't work with
the old server; is that true? Or just the old drivers won't work with
the new server?
New server requires new drivers. Old server requires old drivers. There
is no valid combination of new and old.
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Simon Stelling wrote:
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
We are working to ensure the dependencies work as smoothly as possible,
but I expect there will be some issues since it's difficult to require
updates to all these optional drivers following an update to the server.
wouldn'
Simon Stelling wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> We are working to ensure the dependencies work as smoothly as possible,
>> but I expect there will be some issues since it's difficult to require
>> updates to all these optional drivers following an update to the server.
>
> wouldn't !< atoms solv
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
We are working to ensure the dependencies work as smoothly as possible,
but I expect there will be some issues since it's difficult to require
updates to all these optional drivers following an update to the server.
wouldn't !< atoms solve that problem?
--
Kind Regards,
Hi all,
Just wanted to make you aware that xorg-server 1.1 (and all release
candidates, including 1.0.99 and up) breaks the server-driver ABI from 1.0.
This means drivers are not compatible following an upgrade of
xorg-server, and both sides will require an update to work again properly.
This al
17 matches
Mail list logo
