[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Unified nVidia Driver Ebuild ready for testing

[Peter <pete4abw@comcast.net>]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:13:45 +0000, Stuart Herbert wrote:

> Hi Peter,
> 
> On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 14:05 -0500, Peter wrote:
>> in any case. By unifying the ebuilds, we are merely duplicating what
>> nvidia provides in its install packages. We're not doing anything they
>> aren't.
> 
> Who is "we" please?  
augustus, spyderous, azarah, me and testers.

> As you're a non-dev, it would be polite to
> introduce yourself at the top of emails like this for the benefit of
> those who don't want to wade through that bug.  You probably didn't
> intend it this way, but your lack of introduction has distracted from
> the work you're trying to do here.

I was just doing as I was asked. Post an invitation for testing and
comments. I did not think I had to do anything more other than document
what this project is about. As for my lack of etiquette, I apologize.

I'm peter, a user. I contribute ebuilds. Rox primarily, avfs, nvidia,
libtrash, fuse, python-alsa plus I've commented on many more
(enlightenment, eterm, etc,). I also rewrote the rox.eclass. In
addition, I have made small contributions to several OS projects over the
last seven years. I enjoy participating.

This particular project _was_ my idea. I posted the bug with a first stab at
the unified ebuild. augustus took it up and is now in charge. I truly felt
there were two problems that this corrected. 

1) the existing ebuild code was a bit messy and outdated. Unifying the
ebuilds forced a cleanup long overdue
2) the concept of splitting a product seemed overly complex and
unnecessary.

The whole purpose of opening a bug on it was to have the concept reviewed,
improved, or disregarded.

I did _not_ do this project in order to defend it or try and justify it.
If it fills a need, then it will be ported. If not, it won't. But just
because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that
it is the right way or it can't change. The ati drivers come as one
package so why can't nvidia. The "extra" package ati has are far larger
and far more complex than the TWO nvidia extra programs. The idea of
having an nvidia kernel ebuild and a separate nvidia glx ebuild is not
logical. glx depends on kernel, but not the other way around? Good luck
running a glx app withing it! nvidia-settings and xconfig are so small
they are insignificant in terms of compile time. 1' 10".

And, consider from the user's pov. Wouldn't it be simpler and easier to
say "emerge nvidia-drivers" and be done with it?

So, that's it. Sorry for the non-intro, but I wasn't asked to do that.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list