[gentoo-user] modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[gentoo-user] modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[Iain Buchanan]

I noticed after a sync a few nights ago, that modular xorg is in ~x86.
I also noticed a few people here have installed a while ago already.

so, can I just go ahead with it?  I need a functional X on this box, but
I'm happy to put up with a few quirks.  What are the gotcha's?

thanks,
-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au>

If you sell diamonds, you cannot expect to have many customers.
But a diamond is a diamond even if there are no customers.
		-- Swami Prabhupada

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1284 bytes --]

On Monday 27 March 2006 17:48, Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au> wrote 
about '[gentoo-user] modular Xorg made it to ~x86':
> I noticed after a sync a few nights ago, that modular xorg is in ~x86.
> I also noticed a few people here have installed a while ago already.
>
> so, can I just go ahead with it?  I need a functional X on this box, but
> I'm happy to put up with a few quirks.  What are the gotcha's?

For me there were a crapload of packages to unmask, I'm betting that won't 
be an issue for you. :)

Unless they've changed something you do have to unmerge 6.8 before starting 
to merge 7, so for a bit you might have issues starting new x11 programs, 
but I was able to do the entire changeover from within X, with kaffeine, 
kmail and a dozen other X applications running.  I simply restarted X 
after I was done.

Just make sure you read the official migration guide and the one on the 
wiki before you start and have them available while you are doing the 
upgrade.

*goes to remove xorg 7 from his package.unmask*

-- 
"If there's one thing we've established over the years,
it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest
clue what's best for them in terms of package stability."
-- Gentoo Developer Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[Chad Feller]

run revdep-rebuild (from gentoolkit) after you do the upgrade, there 
were several packages, that had to rebuild against the new Xorg.

Iain Buchanan wrote:
> I noticed after a sync a few nights ago, that modular xorg is in ~x86.
> I also noticed a few people here have installed a while ago already.
>
> so, can I just go ahead with it?  I need a functional X on this box, but
> I'm happy to put up with a few quirks.  What are the gotcha's?
>
> thanks,
>   


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[Jerry McBride]

On Monday 27 March 2006 18:48, Iain Buchanan wrote:
> I noticed after a sync a few nights ago, that modular xorg is in ~x86.
> I also noticed a few people here have installed a while ago already.
>
> so, can I just go ahead with it?  I need a functional X on this box, but
> I'm happy to put up with a few quirks.  What are the gotcha's?
>


For me, over a small mix of hardware I had to manually emerge twm, setx, some 
odd fonts to get equal service from 7.0 as I had in previous 6.x.x X. Also... 
one small plus... on my personal HP laptop sporting at 9100igt video chips... 
dri is already present in 7.0. Before I had to install it via 
dri.sourceforge.net.


Cheers.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] nvidia 6629? was: modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[Norberto Bensa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 239 bytes --]

Iain Buchanan wrote:
> I need a functional X on this box, but
> I'm happy to put up with a few quirks.  What are the gotcha's?

I'll hijack this one. 

Has anyone tried Xorg7 with nvidia 1.0.6629? 


Thanks in advance,
Norberto

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia 6629? was: modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 730 bytes --]

On Monday 27 March 2006 22:55, Norberto Bensa <nbensa@gmx.net> wrote 
about '[gentoo-user] nvidia 6629?  was: modular Xorg made it to ~x86':
> Iain Buchanan wrote:
> > I need a functional X on this box, but
> > I'm happy to put up with a few quirks.  What are the gotcha's?
>
> Has anyone tried Xorg7 with nvidia 1.0.6629?

Nope, I'm running pure ~amd64, so I am using the 8xxx line of drivers.  
They seem fine to me; have you tried upgrading?  Or, perhaps you are using 
an old video card?

-- 
"If there's one thing we've established over the years,
it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest
clue what's best for them in terms of package stability."
-- Gentoo Developer Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia 6629? was: modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 330 bytes --]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:55:03 -0300, Norberto Bensa wrote:

> Has anyone tried Xorg7 with nvidia 1.0.6629? 

Why do you want to use such an old version? I have it working with
1.0.7174, the last that works with the TNT2 card in this box.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia 6629? was: modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[Norberto Bensa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 303 bytes --]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:55:03 -0300, Norberto Bensa wrote:
> > Has anyone tried Xorg7 with nvidia 1.0.6629?
>
> Why do you want to use such an old version? I have it working with
> 1.0.7174, the last that works with the TNT2 card in this box.

With GLX enabled?

Regards,
Norberto

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia 6629? was: modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[Norberto Bensa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 295 bytes --]

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> Nope, I'm running pure ~amd64, so I am using the 8xxx line of drivers.
> They seem fine to me; have you tried upgrading?  Or, perhaps you are using
> an old video card?

Old one. GeForce 2 MX (NV10 IIRC)

I guess I'll have to buy a new one...


Regards,
Norberto

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia 6629? was: modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 377 bytes --]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:10:33 -0300, Norberto Bensa wrote:

> > Why do you want to use such an old version? I have it working with
> > 1.0.7174, the last that works with the TNT2 card in this box.
> 
> With GLX enabled?

I think so, but I don't have access to that box right now.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Time for a diet!                             -- [NO FLABBIER].

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia 6629? was: modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[Kristian Poul Herkild]

Norberto Bensa wrote:
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> 
>>Nope, I'm running pure ~amd64, so I am using the 8xxx line of drivers.
>>They seem fine to me; have you tried upgrading?  Or, perhaps you are using
>>an old video card?
> 
> 
> Old one. GeForce 2 MX (NV10 IIRC)
> 
> I guess I'll have to buy a new one...
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Norberto

Well, I have an old GeForce2 MX400 and I'm using 1.0.8178-r3 with GLX, 
though only with X.org6.8

But 1.0.8178 works much better than the older ones. 6629 never worked 
for me - the oldest I can use (with GLX) are the 1.0.7174.

Kristian Poul Herkild
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia 6629? was: modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[Chad Feller]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:10:33 -0300, Norberto Bensa wrote:
>
>   
>>> Why do you want to use such an old version? I have it working with
>>> 1.0.7174, the last that works with the TNT2 card in this box.
>>>       
>> With GLX enabled?
>>     
>
> I think so, but I don't have access to that box right now.
>
>
>   

I've got an old nVida card:

  01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV6 [Vanta/Vanta 
LT] (rev 15)

 and am using the 7174.  GLX, DRI it all works well.  I've been putting 
off upgrading to modular X on this box until I knew that any bugs which 
might affect the nVidia kernel were resolved.  So has anyone using this 
unified driver upgraded to modular Xorg and still had GLX, DRI all work 
using the nVidia 7174?

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia 6629? was: modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[Matthew Cline]

On 3/28/06, Chad Feller <cfeller@unr.nevada.edu> wrote:
> I've got an old nVida card:
>
>   01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV6 [Vanta/Vanta
> LT] (rev 15)
>
>  and am using the 7174.  GLX, DRI it all works well.  I've been putting
> off upgrading to modular X on this box until I knew that any bugs which
> might affect the nVidia kernel were resolved.  So has anyone using this
> unified driver upgraded to modular Xorg and still had GLX, DRI all work
> using the nVidia 7174?
>
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

I also have an old nvidia card:

# lspci
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV15 [GeForce2
GTS/Pro] (rev a4)

and am using the 7167 driver. I upgraded to modular X this weekend.
The only problem i ran into was this bug:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111877

To get around this, I had to switch to the X opengl interface, emerge
X, then switch back to the nvidia interface. I also made sure to
rebuild the nvidia module after the X upgrade.

No problems so far. Haven't really noticed any differnce in speed,
stability, etc.

HTH,

Matt

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia 6629? was: modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[Norberto Bensa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 356 bytes --]

Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
> Well, I have an old GeForce2 MX400 and I'm using 1.0.8178-r3 with GLX,
> though only with X.org6.8
>
> But 1.0.8178 works much better than the older ones. 6629 never worked
> for me - the oldest I can use (with GLX) are the 1.0.7174.

Hm. Just out of curiosity. What kernel are you running?

Many thanks in advance,
Norberto

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia 6629? was: modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[Jules Colding]

On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 00:01 -0300, Norberto Bensa wrote:
> Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
> > Well, I have an old GeForce2 MX400 and I'm using 1.0.8178-r3 with GLX,
> > though only with X.org6.8
> >
> > But 1.0.8178 works much better than the older ones. 6629 never worked
> > for me - the oldest I can use (with GLX) are the 1.0.7174.

6629 is the latest non-'~' that works for me (Xorg-6.8):

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127824


-- 
  jules


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia 6629? was: modular Xorg made it to ~x86

[Norberto Bensa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 578 bytes --]

> Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
> > Well, I have an old GeForce2 MX400 and I'm using 1.0.8178-r3 with GLX,
> > though only with X.org6.8
> >
> > But 1.0.8178 works much better than the older ones. 6629 never worked
> > for me - the oldest I can use (with GLX) are the 1.0.7174.

It's true. It seems 8178 works much much smoother that 6629. Also, it works on 
my card (Nvidia GeForce 2MX.) So now I'm running:

kernel: 2.6.15-gentoo-r7
xorg: xorg-x11-6.8.2-r6
nvidia: nvidia-kernel-1.0.8178-r3, nvidia-glx-1.0.8178-r1


Thanks everyone!

Best regards,
Norberto

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]