[gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Daniel Drake]

On Thursday I plan to request that the x86 and amd64 arch teams mark the 
latest gentoo-sources-2.6.22 revision stable. We have no reported 
regressions for this kernel release.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 643 bytes --]

On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 19:35 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On Thursday I plan to request that the x86 and amd64 arch teams mark the 
> latest gentoo-sources-2.6.22 revision stable. We have no reported 
> regressions for this kernel release.

I haven't been able to get ati-drivers to compile against a 2.6.22
kernel. Seems to be for similar reasons as
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181982

error: linux/ioctl32.h: No such file or directory

Not sure if bumping the ati-drivers package will address that. But I
could see that potentially being a problem for 2.6.22 stabilization.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Jonathan Adamczewski]

William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Not sure if bumping the ati-drivers package will address that. But I
> could see that potentially being a problem for 2.6.22 stabilization.
>   

ati-drivers is a couple of releases behind in the tree - the latest 
versions have been fixed to work with kernel 2.6.22.  Check out 
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=183480

j.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Daniel Drake]

William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> I haven't been able to get ati-drivers to compile against a 2.6.22
> kernel. Seems to be for similar reasons as
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181982
> 
> error: linux/ioctl32.h: No such file or directory

I already approved a patch against current stable for this:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182597

Theres only so much I can do... Any help prodding the maintainers is 
appreciated.

Daniel
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Doug Goldstein]

Daniel Drake wrote:
> William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> I haven't been able to get ati-drivers to compile against a 2.6.22
>> kernel. Seems to be for similar reasons as
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181982
>>
>> error: linux/ioctl32.h: No such file or directory
>
> I already approved a patch against current stable for this:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182597
>
> Theres only so much I can do... Any help prodding the maintainers is 
> appreciated.
>
> Daniel
There are no maintainers of ati-drivers. So you're not prodding anyone.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1173 bytes --]

On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 09:36 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Daniel Drake wrote:
> > William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> >> I haven't been able to get ati-drivers to compile against a 2.6.22
> >> kernel. Seems to be for similar reasons as
> >> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181982
> >>
> >> error: linux/ioctl32.h: No such file or directory
> >
> > I already approved a patch against current stable for this:
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182597
> >
> > Theres only so much I can do... Any help prodding the maintainers is 
> > appreciated.
> >
> > Daniel
> There are no maintainers of ati-drivers. So you're not prodding anyone.

Unmaintained and broken... sounds like a candidate for removal.

NVIDIA FTW!!!

*grin*

No, seriously.  If this is holding us back, I'll do the commits provided
I can find people to help me with testing.  This is for the very short
term.  I don't want to maintain a driver for hardware I don't own and
never intend on purchasing.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1040 bytes --]

On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 09:54 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > If this is holding us back, I'll do the commits provided
> I can find people to help me with testing.

I am willing to help. I got a 2.6.22 kernel I want to boot to test out
the new mac80211 stuff vs the older softmac. The ati-driver issue is the
only thing holding me back. Just haven't had a chance to apply patches
per bug, and bump ebuild locally to test.

If it's in an overlay, or tree, surely happy to sync and test :)

>   This is for the very short
> term.  I don't want to maintain a driver for hardware I don't own and
> never intend on purchasing.

Well seems most AMD machines are likely to ship with ATI chipsets these
days. For sure most lappies :)

Interesting side note. Beryl/Xgl works on my laptop, ATI Xpress200m. Had
it working once on my two workstations. Both with nVidia chipsets, and
nothing special, but nothing that old either. First time I have had more
problems with nVidia vs ATI.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[federico ferri]

William L. Thomson Jr. ha scritto:
>>   This is for the very short
>> term.  I don't want to maintain a driver for hardware I don't own and
>> never intend on purchasing.
>>     
>
> Well seems most AMD machines are likely to ship with ATI chipsets these
> days. For sure most lappies :)
>
> Interesting side note. Beryl/Xgl works on my laptop, ATI Xpress200m.
cool... would you like to write a pair of lines describing the process, 
software (ebuilds) versions used, tips and quirks? cause I tried many 
time but always failes someway, so that I started to think ati-drivers 
for X200M are bork :S

-- 
0xff

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1347 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 20:09 +0200, federico ferri wrote:
> William L. Thomson Jr. ha scritto:
> >>   This is for the very short
> >> term.  I don't want to maintain a driver for hardware I don't own and
> >> never intend on purchasing.
> >>     
> >
> > Well seems most AMD machines are likely to ship with ATI chipsets these
> > days. For sure most lappies :)
> >
> > Interesting side note. Beryl/Xgl works on my laptop, ATI Xpress200m.
> cool... would you like to write a pair of lines describing the process,
> software (ebuilds) versions used, tips and quirks?

Yeah I might see about documenting it at some point, but I basically
just followed the wiki. Although it's still a little quirky wrt to
starting beryl-xgl, and beryl-manager during log in. But that kinda
gives me a choice when I log in to start metacity or beryl :)

>  cause I tried many
> time but always failes someway, so that I started to think ati-drivers
> for X200M are bork :S

Nah, it's all about your config. If that sucker is not dialed in it will
blow. It took me forever to get mine to where it's at. Still some stuff
left like dialing in dual monitors and etc. Here is my current
xorg.conf. It's still kinda a mess, but should help out.

http://dev.gentoo.org/~wltjr/misc/xpress200m_xorg.conf

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 556 bytes --]

On Wednesday 01 August 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 09:54 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >   This is for the very short
> > term.  I don't want to maintain a driver for hardware I don't own and
> > never intend on purchasing.
>
> Well seems most AMD machines are likely to ship with ATI chipsets these
> days. For sure most lappies :)

maybe, but irrelevant i think

if the driver blows dead goats and the vendor isnt willing to help and no 
Gentoo dev wants to touch it, what other solution is there ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 698 bytes --]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:31:09 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> if the driver blows dead goats and the vendor isnt willing to help
> and no Gentoo dev wants to touch it, what other solution is there ?

There's an open-source driver for the r5xx stuff called the avivo
driver [1]. It's still pretty rough, so I haven't packaged it yet. For
anyone interested, it should be pretty easy to make an ebuild for it
based on the xf86-video-ati ebuild and the git eclass.

For the present, je_fro's picked up ati-drivers and anarchy's been
sending changes for some of the newest stuff.

Thanks,
Donnie

1. http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=avivo/xf86-video-avivo.git;a=summary

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1029 bytes --]

On Thursday 02 August 2007, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > if the driver blows dead goats and the vendor isnt willing to help
> > and no Gentoo dev wants to touch it, what other solution is there ?
>
> There's an open-source driver for the r5xx stuff called the avivo
> driver [1]. It's still pretty rough, so I haven't packaged it yet. For
> anyone interested, it should be pretty easy to make an ebuild for it
> based on the xf86-video-ati ebuild and the git eclass.
>
> For the present, je_fro's picked up ati-drivers and anarchy's been
> sending changes for some of the newest stuff.

sounds good to me ... so to tie back to the source of the thread, crappy 
closed source vendor drivers are not a valid reason to hold up stabilization 
of a kernel

if the issue affects you:
 (1) complain to the vendor
 (2) help make the package work with the new kernel
 (3) dont buy the hardware
 (4) stop bugging the kernel developers
 (5) give me a hug
 (6) goto 5
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1244 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 20:05 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 
> sounds good to me ... so to tie back to the source of the thread, crappy 
> closed source vendor drivers are not a valid reason to hold up stabilization 
> of a kernel

Who ever said they were crappy? Maybe the documentation on usage is
crappy, but drivers have consistently gotten much better. These days
pretty solid IMHO for my uses.

They just did not compile against 2.6.22 due to some files being moved
around or etc. I happen to like the drivers, and they are the only thing
I can use to get DRI from my hardware.

Last I checked there was a version of ati-drivers available for stable
systems. So by stabilizing 2.6.22 you will effectively break those
systems. Not breakage in portage's eyes, but people upgrading their
systems won't be able to run the latest stable kernel with the latest
stable ati-drivers.

FYI, the patches in bug #183480 [1] allow one to use the most current
ati-drivers with a 2.6.22 kernel. As I am now while I am composing this
message. Having applied said patches and bumped ebuild locally. Just
needs to happen in tree :)

     1. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=183480

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 500 bytes --]

William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> FYI, the patches in bug #183480 [1] allow one to use the most current
> ati-drivers with a 2.6.22 kernel. As I am now while I am composing this
> message. Having applied said patches and bumped ebuild locally. Just
> needs to happen in tree :)

  01 Aug 2007; Jeff Gardner <je_fro@gentoo.org>
  +files/8.37.6/fix-ioctl-for-2.6.22.patch, ati-drivers-8.37.6-r1.ebuild:
  Add patch to allow compilation with 2.6.22 kernels. See bug #182597.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 786 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 20:35 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > FYI, the patches in bug #183480 [1] allow one to use the most current
> > ati-drivers with a 2.6.22 kernel. As I am now while I am composing this
> > message. Having applied said patches and bumped ebuild locally. Just
> > needs to happen in tree :)
> 
>   01 Aug 2007; Jeff Gardner <je_fro@gentoo.org>
>   +files/8.37.6/fix-ioctl-for-2.6.22.patch, ati-drivers-8.37.6-r1.ebuild:
>   Add patch to allow compilation with 2.6.22 kernels. See bug #182597.

Thanks, hope I didn't come off as bitching about it needing to be
committed. Just pointing it out :) But we are all good know, I should
have grown a pair and committed it myself :)

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1188 bytes --]

On Thursday 02 August 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 20:05 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > sounds good to me ... so to tie back to the source of the thread, crappy
> > closed source vendor drivers are not a valid reason to hold up
> > stabilization of a kernel
>
> Who ever said they were crappy? Maybe the documentation on usage is
> crappy, but drivers have consistently gotten much better. These days
> pretty solid IMHO for my uses.

last time i used the drivers they sucked hard ... maybe it's gotten better; i 
dont know -- i tossed all my ati in favor of nvidia

my point though wasnt to knock ati (although it was fun), the point was that i 
do not believe any closed source driver in our tree should ever be grounds 
for preventing stabilization of a kernel ebuild

so next time dsd (or whoever the ninja kernel maintainer happens to be at the 
time) says "hey i plan on stabilizing Linux x.y.z" and someone goes "wait, 
you cant until we get <closed source driver package foo> working", the reply 
is of course "blow it out your arse^H^H^H^Htalk to the package maintainer, 
this will not hold up stabilization efforts"
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 768 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> my point though wasnt to knock ati (although it was fun), the point was that i 
> do not believe any closed source driver in our tree should ever be grounds 
> for preventing stabilization of a kernel ebuild
> 
> so next time dsd (or whoever the ninja kernel maintainer happens to be at the 
> time) says "hey i plan on stabilizing Linux x.y.z" and someone goes "wait, 
> you cant until we get <closed source driver package foo> working", the reply 
> is of course "blow it out your arse^H^H^H^Htalk to the package maintainer, 
> this will not hold up stabilization efforts"

If we're gonna go with this policy here, I'm also going to adopt it for
X so we don't get stuck in limbo as happened fairly recently.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> my point though wasnt to knock ati (although it was fun), the point was that i 
>> do not believe any closed source driver in our tree should ever be grounds 
>> for preventing stabilization of a kernel ebuild
>>
>> so next time dsd (or whoever the ninja kernel maintainer happens to be at the 
>> time) says "hey i plan on stabilizing Linux x.y.z" and someone goes "wait, 
>> you cant until we get <closed source driver package foo> working", the reply 
>> is of course "blow it out your arse^H^H^H^Htalk to the package maintainer, 
>> this will not hold up stabilization efforts"
> 
> If we're gonna go with this policy here, I'm also going to adopt it for
> X so we don't get stuck in limbo as happened fairly recently.

If we're going to do this, we should just keep the unfree drivers in testing.

Marijn
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1000 bytes --]

On Friday 03 August 2007, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> my point though wasnt to knock ati (although it was fun), the point was
> >> that i do not believe any closed source driver in our tree should ever
> >> be grounds for preventing stabilization of a kernel ebuild
> >>
> >> so next time dsd (or whoever the ninja kernel maintainer happens to be
> >> at the time) says "hey i plan on stabilizing Linux x.y.z" and someone
> >> goes "wait, you cant until we get <closed source driver package foo>
> >> working", the reply is of course "blow it out your arse^H^H^H^Htalk to
> >> the package maintainer, this will not hold up stabilization efforts"
> >
> > If we're gonna go with this policy here, I'm also going to adopt it for
> > X so we don't get stuck in limbo as happened fairly recently.
>
> If we're going to do this, we should just keep the unfree drivers in
> testing.

i dont think that logically follows the previous argument
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Daniel Drake]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> so next time dsd (or whoever the ninja kernel maintainer happens to be at the 
>> time) says "hey i plan on stabilizing Linux x.y.z" and someone goes "wait, 
>> you cant until we get <closed source driver package foo> working", the reply 
>> is of course "blow it out your arse^H^H^H^Htalk to the package maintainer, 
>> this will not hold up stabilization efforts"
> 
> If we're gonna go with this policy here, I'm also going to adopt it for
> X so we don't get stuck in limbo as happened fairly recently.

This is how it has been for a while, and not only closed source drivers. 
We have many open source kernel drivers/filesystems in the tree which 
regularly break with new kernel releases. When these packages break in 
this way, it is a bug in such packages, not in the kernel.

[For those wondering why the kernel keeps changing, see 
Documentation/stable-api-nonsense.txt : it is by design, maintaining 
kernel code outside of the kernel is discouraged for this reason, 
solution is get it in the kernel]

Maintainers of these packages got unhappy that they didn't really have 
warning when new kernels were going stable, so I started announcing that 
(and usually giving more notice on gentoo-dev than this time around, 
sorry about that). That helped, but trying to encourage maintainers to 
fix their stuff every few weeks gets old and some maintainers become 
less responsive. Kernels go stable anyway and so users complain.

I now take it a step further, and create package regression tracker bugs 
for each kernel release. bug #184683 is the 2.6.22 one, a little smaller 
than usual.

For each bug that gets added to the tracker, I comment on any patches 
that have been posted (e.g. "that's the correct fix") or if there aren't 
already patches, I explain how to fix the code based on the compile 
error. This is work I'd rather not do (I really don't care about your 
package), but seems to work relatively well.

There are times when after I 'approve' a patch, another developer asks 
me to commit it. I think that's a little unreasonable. I'm not prepared 
to go *that* far at the moment, especially as I usually can't test the 
package in question.

The model seems to work relatively well. One associated challenge is 
making sure maintainers fix their packages in the stable tree (not only 
unstable) before stabilization takes place, but that has certainly been 
improving lately, e.g. Stefan did a great job fixing up many external 
wireless drivers this time around, and I didn't have to reopen any of 
the bugs :)

All that aside, my advice for developers considering maintaining kernel 
code in portage outside of the kernel still remains as "don't do it". 
Your package grows bugs overnight. It's a continual challenge trying to 
keep up, and it's a headache for me trying to poke you into action. Or, 
if you really must do this, never mark your package stable (that way I 
can ignore it).

Daniel
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 480 bytes --]

On Friday 03 August 2007, Daniel Drake wrote:
> All that aside, my advice for developers considering maintaining kernel
> code in portage outside of the kernel still remains as "don't do it".
> Your package grows bugs overnight. It's a continual challenge trying to
> keep up, and it's a headache for me trying to poke you into action. Or,
> if you really must do this, never mark your package stable (that way I
> can ignore it).

i pity the foo who doesnt listen to dsd !
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Gustavo Zacarias]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mike Frysinger wrote:

> so next time dsd (or whoever the ninja kernel maintainer happens to be at the 
> time) says "hey i plan on stabilizing Linux x.y.z" and someone goes "wait, 
> you cant until we get <closed source driver package foo> working", the reply 
> is of course "blow it out your arse^H^H^H^Htalk to the package maintainer, 
> this will not hold up stabilization efforts"
> -mike

They can always use the previous kernel version that worked too, it's
not like "OMG BBQ i'm not on the latest bleeding edge version!!1111one".

- --
Gustavo Zacarias
Gentoo/SPARC monkey
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGs2nuV3G/IBCn/JARAsaeAJ9i+hH8cv16jRSlMLruC7X8jpG0lACbBxGi
N8lgqzbyJUxVokrhWeANtrg=
=MTXP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1723 bytes --]

On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 00:14 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 02 August 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 20:05 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > sounds good to me ... so to tie back to the source of the thread, crappy
> > > closed source vendor drivers are not a valid reason to hold up
> > > stabilization of a kernel
> >
> > Who ever said they were crappy? Maybe the documentation on usage is
> > crappy, but drivers have consistently gotten much better. These days
> > pretty solid IMHO for my uses.
> 
> last time i used the drivers they sucked hard ... maybe it's gotten better; i 
> dont know -- i tossed all my ati in favor of nvidia

Well ati's stuff has gotten much better over the last year. But really
IMHO from my experience. It's entirely about your xorg.conf. Wrong
config or etc and it will totally blow. In that regard nVidia seems to
be way more tolerant, and maybe detects stuff at runtime, ati requires
to be configed in xorg.conf.

> my point though wasnt to knock ati (although it was fun), the point was that i 
> do not believe any closed source driver in our tree should ever be grounds 
> for preventing stabilization of a kernel ebuild

Yes, I don't like that it's closed source either. But closed or open
source. It seems odd to have packages in our stable tree that don't work
with each other? Doesn't that kinda go against the point of our stable
tree?

I personally don't use genkernel, but I believe those updating their
systems via emerge world, and then running genkernel later against the
new kernel. Will likely have it fail, and then report bugs against our
stable tree.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1007 bytes --]

On Saturday 04 August 2007, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 00:14 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > my point though wasnt to knock ati (although it was fun), the point was
> > that i do not believe any closed source driver in our tree should ever be
> > grounds for preventing stabilization of a kernel ebuild
>
> Yes, I don't like that it's closed source either. But closed or open
> source. It seems odd to have packages in our stable tree that don't work
> with each other? Doesn't that kinda go against the point of our stable
> tree?

then dont stabilize the closed source packages, problem solved

> I personally don't use genkernel, but I believe those updating their
> systems via emerge world, and then running genkernel later against the
> new kernel. Will likely have it fail, and then report bugs against our
> stable tree.

boy thats sure a pickle when we cant do s**t about it (maybe *this* time we 
can fix it, but that is not always the case)
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 618 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 16:55 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:31:09 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > if the driver blows dead goats and the vendor isnt willing to help
> > and no Gentoo dev wants to touch it, what other solution is there ?
> 
> There's an open-source driver for the r5xx stuff called the avivo
> driver [1].
>
> 1. http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=avivo/xf86-video-avivo.git;a=summary

Still leaves a gap, since the open source radeon driver is not fully
supporting R3xx to my knowledge much less r4xx.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: 2.6.22 stable plans

[Duncan]

"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> posted
1186111148.32543.9.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com, excerpted below, on 
Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:19:08 -0400:

> On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 16:55 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:31:09 -0400
>> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > if the driver blows dead goats and the vendor isnt willing to help
>> > and no Gentoo dev wants to touch it, what other solution is there ?
>> 
>> There's an open-source driver for the r5xx stuff called the avivo
>> driver [1].
>>
>> 1.
>> http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=avivo/xf86-video-avivo.git;a=summary
> 
> Still leaves a gap, since the open source radeon driver is not fully
> supporting R3xx to my knowledge much less r4xx.

To the best of my knowledge... it's not stable upstream yet, but the 
radeon driver now includes (reverse engineered) R3xx and I believe R4xx 
support, including 3D.  R5xx is right out, since even VESA has issues due 
to the no 2D hardware engine at all.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 711 bytes --]

William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 16:55 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:31:09 -0400
>> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> if the driver blows dead goats and the vendor isnt willing to help
>>> and no Gentoo dev wants to touch it, what other solution is there ?
>> There's an open-source driver for the r5xx stuff called the avivo
>> driver [1].
>>
>> 1. http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=avivo/xf86-video-avivo.git;a=summary
> 
> Still leaves a gap, since the open source radeon driver is not fully
> supporting R3xx to my knowledge much less r4xx.

Update your knowledge, the normal radeon driver works nice for both. =)

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Stephen P. Becker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1427 bytes --]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:35:18 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:

> William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 16:55 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:31:09 -0400
> >> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>> if the driver blows dead goats and the vendor isnt willing to help
> >>> and no Gentoo dev wants to touch it, what other solution is
> >>> there ?
> >> There's an open-source driver for the r5xx stuff called the avivo
> >> driver [1].
> >>
> >> 1.
> >> http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=avivo/xf86-video-avivo.git;a=summary
> > 
> > Still leaves a gap, since the open source radeon driver is not fully
> > supporting R3xx to my knowledge much less r4xx.
> 
> Update your knowledge, the normal radeon driver works nice for both.
> =)

I'm not sure I would 100% agree with that.  Yeah, it works for most
things, but 2D definitely could use some speed improvements (still no
Render acceleration), and any recent 3d app that needs some serious
horsepower (e.g. doom3) is pretty much useless.  In fact, last time I
tried to start doom3 using the open source driver, it flat out refused
to start. Things like ut2003 and ut2004 are also pretty much unplayable.

I will say that this is still a better situation than the closed
drivers, which instantly hard lock my computer the first time I exit X
after the initial startup.

-Steve

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 371 bytes --]

Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> I will say that this is still a better situation than the closed
> drivers, which instantly hard lock my computer the first time I exit X
> after the initial startup.

Perhaps this might help you --
http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Problems_with_fglrx#Hardlock_on_X_logout

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Stephen P. Becker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 517 bytes --]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:26:50 +0200
Jan Kundrát <jkt@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > I will say that this is still a better situation than the closed
> > drivers, which instantly hard lock my computer the first time I
> > exit X after the initial startup.
> 
> Perhaps this might help you --
> http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Problems_with_fglrx#Hardlock_on_X_logout
> 

Nope, I've been through all of that numerous times, read that page and
others, and nothing seems to help.

-Steve

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 523 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 20:35 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
> Update your knowledge, the normal radeon driver works nice for both. =)

I will I was following radeon developmen for a while. But last I looked
a few months ago, they were still a ways off from having DRI fully
supported with my hardware. Which is now ruffly 2-3 years old
Xpress200m. So I am sticking with ati-drivers, and only use radeon if
and when I have problems there. Which has been quite some time.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Homer Parker]

On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 09:54 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> No, seriously.  If this is holding us back, I'll do the commits
> provided
> I can find people to help me with testing.  This is for the very short
> term.  I don't want to maintain a driver for hardware I don't own and
> never intend on purchasing. 

	I'm running it on my laptop with a 9600/9700 Mobility (it has an
identity crisis I guess)... Works fine after applying the patch..

-- 
Homer Parker <hparker@gentoo.org>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]

Doug Goldstein wrote:
> There are no maintainers of ati-drivers. So you're not prodding anyone.

Luca? Did you stop maintaining it?

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 07:35:16PM -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
>  On Thursday I plan to request that the x86 and amd64 arch teams mark the 
>  latest gentoo-sources-2.6.22 revision stable. We have no reported 
>  regressions for this kernel release.

Is speakup finally dropped from the gentoo tree in this release?

Was there a reason for this?

thanks,

greg k-h
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Daniel Drake]

Greg KH wrote:
> Is speakup finally dropped from the gentoo tree in this release?

Yes

> Was there a reason for this?

It no longer compiles, as the legacy way of accessing serial ports 
disappeared, serial is now a platform device. I can't see an easy fix.

It may return in future, in a different form. I suggested some future 
direction here:

http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/pipermail/speakup/2007-July/044137.html

Daniel
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 06:35:04PM -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
>  Greg KH wrote:
> > Is speakup finally dropped from the gentoo tree in this release?
> 
>  Yes
> 
> > Was there a reason for this?
> 
>  It no longer compiles, as the legacy way of accessing serial ports 
>  disappeared, serial is now a platform device. I can't see an easy fix.
> 
>  It may return in future, in a different form. I suggested some future 
>  direction here:
> 
>  http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/pipermail/speakup/2007-July/044137.html

Ok, thanks for pointing me at this.  I've already started discussing
this with a few of the users on that list.  I tried a number of years to
get this code into shape enough to get into the main kernel tree.  Looks
like I'll try this again.

thanks,

greg k-h
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2.6.22 stable plans

[Daniel Drake]

Greg KH wrote:
> Ok, thanks for pointing me at this.  I've already started discussing
> this with a few of the users on that list.  I tried a number of years to
> get this code into shape enough to get into the main kernel tree.  Looks
> like I'll try this again.

Let me know if anything comes of it. I'm interested in helping 
development again, but don't presently have enough time to do the 
restructuring needed now.

Daniel
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list