From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EcVkq-0000gq-6l for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:27:48 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAGMQpUi007352; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:26:51 GMT Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.200]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jAGMN0DT014514 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:23:00 GMT Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i28so266331wra for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:22:59 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=NLQQx7H2S5i2i+3a6ZRI378sEqD6QXIyepPAAhAprnrSFDGg1gUjkomgE05nkEEZKCcuS82JuhovCbwol+ODbsHnb6zwzBk80Y75Aq/tvAHmza7BAjfqZFNQ3ucnta6dZcnxpDQkMfEYvNmKSUUEBDiV/KxqU4AYEblTto1vu/g= Received: by 10.54.114.20 with SMTP id m20mr2688018wrc; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:22:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.126.13 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:22:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7573e9640511161422g122aebb0gf74c2dd5ff9500c3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:22:59 -0700 From: Richard Fish Sender: richard.j.fish@gmail.com To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo still on the right path? In-Reply-To: <9999810b0511160820h648eb1a5o4f62300507c2b8a9@mail.gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline References: <9999810b0511160820h648eb1a5o4f62300507c2b8a9@mail.gmail.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id jAGMN0DT014514 X-Archives-Salt: 090a97b1-fe0c-4300-abe9-deb4b5ec51da X-Archives-Hash: 18fb20f2c97dcf3fe17e1ff7a3363e13 On 11/16/05, Derek Tracy wrote: > When a branch is marked stable all of the packages in that branch should > work, I'm not sure this is always possible. Much of your complaint comes from the ipw2200 driver, which is new in 2.6.14. But the in-kernel version is several versions older than the external driver. So should 2.6.14 remain marked as unstable because of this one driver that works for some people, but not for others? Or because a specific externally maintained driver or package doesn't build against it? On my system, either the in-kernel or external drivers work fine. The only caveat is that I need firmware version 2.2 with the in-kernel drivers, and a different version for the external. If I am using the external version, the portage dependancy tree makes sure I have the right version of the firmware. But the kernel sources do not (and should not) depend upon the ipw2200-firmware package, so this is a case where I need to know the driver requirements. (Also, the kernel help specifies that the driver requires external firmware, although it doesn't specify what version.) Regarding the X.org issue, without an Xorg.0.log file, it is really impossible to say what the problem there is. It could be something as simple as your kernel configuration; for example leaving out I2C or AGP support could cause this. But in my view, you cannot take an existing xorg.conf file and expect it to work without any issues _without_ duplicating the same system configuration (kernel version, kernel config, and nvidia driver version). The fastest method of configuring X on a new system is to run "X -configure", test the resulting configuration, and use that xorg.conf file. Yes, this would use the opensource x.org Nv driver, but it should definitely work for getting X up and running. If this doesn't work, then you have reason to complain. If the proprietary nvidia driver doesn't work with a particular kernel version, you can only complain to nvidia. I'm quite sure a binary-based distribution would have worked better for you in this case, only because nothing would have been upgraded or changed. Everything that worked before would have continued to work, just like everything that was broken before would have continued to be broken. It is the price of progress, IMO. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list