Re: [gentoo-user] Xorg.. twm not starting and terrible performance with fluxbox

[Holly Bostick <motub@planet.nl>]

Mrugesh Karnik schreef:
> Richard Fish wrote:
> 
>> The via_drv I am talking about is an _x.org_ driver, not a kernel 
>> driver.  It has nothing to do with the kernel sources or rebuilding
>>  the kernel.  It should exist at /usr/lib/modules/drivers/via_drv.o
>>  (along with all other X11 drivers).
> 
> I know! My xorg just doesn't want to compile that file! So what I
> tried was to enable the VIA drivers in the kernel. It then compiled
> both drm.ko and via.ko and also via_drv.o, but the via_drv.o never
> left the /usr/src directory.

Possibly because you don't have the 'insecure-drivers' USE flag enabled:

> On 11/10/05, Mrugesh Karnik <mrugeshkarnik@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
 > carcharias rjf # equery belongs /usr/lib/modules/drivers/via_drv.o [
> Searching for file(s) /usr/lib/modules/drivers/via_drv.o in *... ] 
> x11-base/xorg-x11-6.8.2-r6 (/usr/lib/modules/drivers/via_drv.o) 
> carcharias rjf # emerge -vp x11-base/xorg-x11
> 
> These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies ...done! [ebuild   R   ]
> x11-base/xorg-x11-6.8.2-r6  -3dfx -3dnow +bitmap-fonts -cjk -debug
> -dlloader -dmx +doc +font-server -insecure-drivers +ipv6 -minimal
> +mmx +nls -nocxx +opengl +pam -sdk +sse -static +truetype-fonts
> +type1-fonts (-uclibc) -xprint +xv 0 kB
> 

/usr/portage/profiles/use.local.desc:x11-base/xorg-x11:insecure-drivers
- Builds insecure DRI stuff for via, mach64 and savage

You might as well try it; you can't be much worse off.

> I just can't understand why the file isn't compiled by xorg. Not to 
> mention, FC4 uses "vesa" and works perfectly. I wonder what's going
> on with Gentoo :(
> 

Like most binary distros, the FC RPMs probably enable everything
'enableable'. I have no idea why the drivers are considered 'insecure',
but assuming they are (which would not surprise me), it's well within
the realm of possibility that they fall under the "you have to know what
you're doing and decide for yourself' section of the Gentoo design
philosopy (which is the major thrust of the Gentoo design philosopy, so
that doesn't surprise me either).

Why FC 4 would enable them and Gentoo would mark them as insecure....
well, heck-- FC4 uses GCC 4.0 *by default* as I understand it, and we
have it completely masked (and most other distros don't use it either,
afaik, certainly not by default yet). So since FC4 seems to want to live
even further out on the 'bleeding edge' than we are said to do, again,
I'm not surprised that the drivers would be enabled by default, no
matter their status in terms of security, completeness, or stability.

HTH,
Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list