X 7.1 still testing on x86/amd64 because of BINARY drivers?

micmac · l33t Joined: 28 Nov 2003 Posts: 996

Hi,

why not let ati/nvidia binary drivers depend on <=virtual/x11-7.0? Even if x11-7.1 is stable it wouldn't be installed while the driver is (in case portage can handle it).

Cheers
mic

tamran · n00b Joined: 10 Jan 2004 Posts: 35 Location: Ft. Myers, FL

R!tman

Lloeki · Guru Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 437 Location: France

Hmmm, I've been thinking about this for some time... and wondered about something:

What is the true meaning of x86/~x86/hard-masked?

you could say that:
x86 = package is stable
~x86 = package is unstable
hard-masked = package is dangerous
blocker = packages are incompatible
but it's a bit vague in the end

but it seems there are two PoV in the end:
PoV 1: "package-centric"
x86 = package is judged stable by itself (i.e each component provided in the package works)
~x86 = package is judged unstable by itself (i.e mostly works. e.g evdev is reported to be broken)
hard-masked = package may have ill side-effects (i.e installing it might break my system. e.g jdk-1.5 breaks other package building)
blocker = installing package will prevent other package from working

PoV 2: "system-centric"
x86 = package is judged stable system-wise (i.e installing it won't break my system)
~x86 = package is judged unstable system-wise (i.e installing it might break my system, e.g ati/nv driver is incompatible)
hard-masked = package may have ill side-effects (i.e installing it might break my system. e.g jdk-1.5 breaks other package building)

personnally, I'm in PoV2: when I install anything x86, I seriously expect nothing to break anywhere in my system. package.keyword allows me to pull in only some packages and take some risks (whether I know it won't break or not). so I voted "stay in ~x86".
on the other end (PoV1), blocker is a solution, but only because fglrx is pulled via xorg-x11 VIDEO_CARDS feature (if it was but a dependency one way or the other, it wouldn't work: think of a fresh install).
maybe this is clearly defined somewhere in a gentoo handbook, but I can't remember seeing anything but "~x86=unstable". clarifications (and unification throughout portage) would be welcome.

I feel it really has nothing to do with closed-source drivers in the end, but the semantics we attach to x86/~x86.

or maybe not. if this was not for closed-source, the discussion wouldn't even take place and 7.1 would stay ~x86 without a fuss. I'm sure of it.

I like open-source. really. I hope r300 will do a nice job and wish them the best of luck, but r200 only begins to support major features for cards 5+ years old... so sometimes you have to go closed-source. It's not that bad in the end, it's a compromise between a NDA world and an opensource world. frankly I'm sick of people going "closed-source is evil", we should be happy to receive linux support at all for those high-end cards. I even wish sometimes there's more of it: more vendor drivers, easier linux, more linux users, more open-source...

now I'll return to my work which needs opengl 2.0 under linux, on my laptop that won't suspend properly without fglrx.
_________________
Moved to using Arch Linux
Life is meant to be lived, not given up...
HOLY COW I'M TOTALLY GOING SO FAST OH F***

complexity · n00b Joined: 14 Apr 2005 Posts: 67

Pov2 sounds what i perfer as well.

codergeek42 · Last edited by codergeek42 on Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:57 am; edited 1 time in total

Q-collective · Advocate Joined: 22 Mar 2004 Posts: 2071

chunderbunny · Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject:

gregf · Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject:

> Complexity posted under a buddies account last nite by mistake.... Very happy with gentoo myself just saying pov2 would be nice although i don't want thinks to move so slow that were at Debians pace either. In no way complaining though love gentoo.

boroshan · l33t Joined: 16 Apr 2003 Posts: 730 Location: upside down

Split from discussion here.

Essentially, I'd like to start a debate (a polite one if possible) about the wisdom of releasing xorg 7.1 to ~x86 given that the developers had already discussed the consequences for users of closed source drivers, and fully knew it would break a lot of desktops.

Anyone is welcome to join in. I'm particularly interested in hearing from any of the developers who can expain the thinking behind this decision, and since this seems to me out of keeping with past gentoo policy, I would also like to know if this represents a change in the intended role of ~x86.

I think this needs to be debated publically.
_________________
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!

R.I.P. · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject:

hmmm.
closed-source nvidia and ati drivers are blocking with xorg 7.1, at least it was so when i've tried to update xorg a month ago (now i've masked 7.1 until new drivers are released).
I think this is reasonable. There are always some packages that are mutually exclusive and there is nothing bad with it.
I do not think it is reasonable not to allow the users which have other video cards to test it for a while.

PaveQ

boroshan · l33t Joined: 16 Apr 2003 Posts: 730 Location: upside down

amne · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:37 pm Post subject:

Maybe i'm mistaken, but isn't that quite the issue that is already being discussed in X 7.1 still testing on x86/amd64 because of BINARY drivers??
If so, i'll merge it and you probably already have a lot of opinions to read.

_________________
Dinosaur week! (Ok, this thread is so last week)

boroshan · l33t Joined: 16 Apr 2003 Posts: 730 Location: upside down

boroshan · l33t Joined: 16 Apr 2003 Posts: 730 Location: upside down

amne · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject:

Point taken, it seems to be quite the opposite view of the same problem. The other thread may still have a lot of points that are interesting for you.

Anyway, the problem (or part of the problem) is that x86 and amd64 are already lagging behind the release cycle - 7.1 is already stable on other platforms. As someone who doesn't use those cards / binary drivers, i feel rather as annoyed that i need to unmask otherwise stable packages just because the binary drivers aren't ready yet.

As for the role of ~arch etc, i don't think there have been significant changes. In theory it could be stabled if it wasn't for all those users of binary drivers. One could (and please let's not do that) even argue that upstream (read: nvidia and ati) is unresponsive and dump binary drivers at all so 7.1 could go stable (with non binary free and slow 3d drivers of course).
One could of course also argue that binary drivers are that important, that 7.1 may not be in ~arch before they release it, at the cost of all those people not depending on those drivers anyway.
In any of these two scenarios, at least one group of people really has to suffer the consequences.
Moving it to ~arch is an acceptable compromise for both parties - if you want 7.1 because you don't need binary drivers, you can unmask it easily, if you run a full ~arch system with binary drivers you should have the skills to mask it yourself, too.

Of course the best solution would be if nvidia and ati finally released their binary drivers - or even better some specs that their users need to wait for them to finish it.
_________________
Dinosaur week! (Ok, this thread is so last week)

amne · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:21 pm Post subject:

2nd reply as you replied in the meanwhile as well.

As far i understand you run a ~arch system - in this case and especially if you want to rely on it, i would really advise you to read the GWN regularly and probably also subscribe to the gentoo-dev mailing list. I think that could cut down the number of unpleasant surprises. The other option would of course be running a stable system and only unmasking packages you want to have from ~arch.

PS: merged topics.
_________________
Dinosaur week! (Ok, this thread is so last week)

Genone · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:28 pm Post subject:

boroshan · l33t Joined: 16 Apr 2003 Posts: 730 Location: upside down

playfool · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject:

boroshan · l33t Joined: 16 Apr 2003 Posts: 730 Location: upside down

Lloeki · Guru Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 437 Location: France

Archangel1 · Veteran Joined: 21 Apr 2004 Posts: 1212 Location: Work

playfool · Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:44 am Post subject: