As some of you may know I've been packaging and testing nouveau (the free NVIDIA 3D driver) for some time. The current way the driver is packaged is making things very difficult to properly test on fedora:
* The xf86-video-nv-2.1.5.tar.bz2 and nouveau-gitID.tar.gz are included in the xorg-x11-drv-nv-2.1.5 srpm. * This srpm spits out xorg-x11-drv-nv-2.1.5 and xorg-x11-drv-nouveau-2.1.5 rpm files when built.
This poses me problems as:
* I can't easily keep the original nv rpm intact when building the new nouveau * The upstream version of nouveau ddx is 1.2.0, and the rpm version is 2.1.5 * I can't uninstall the xorg-x11-drv-nv driver to test nouveau from source without nuking the nv driver too.
I understand that one day the nouveau ddx will replace the nv ddx, but this can be accomplished with standard rpm obsoletes rather than shipping the nouveau source in the nv srpm. For me, I think the proper way of doing this would be to:
* Have a nouveau srpm *and* a nv srpm - they are different codebases and have different version numbers * Somehow fix the brokenness that has lead to the version number xorg-x11-drv-nouveau-2.1.5 being installed when actually installed was xorg-x11-drv-nouveau-1.2.0
Ideas welcome.
Richard.
Richard Hughes wrote:
As some of you may know I've been packaging and testing nouveau (the free NVIDIA 3D driver) for some time. The current way the driver is packaged is making things very difficult to properly test on fedora:
- The xf86-video-nv-2.1.5.tar.bz2 and nouveau-gitID.tar.gz are included
in the xorg-x11-drv-nv-2.1.5 srpm.
- This srpm spits out xorg-x11-drv-nv-2.1.5 and
xorg-x11-drv-nouveau-2.1.5 rpm files when built.
This poses me problems as:
- I can't easily keep the original nv rpm intact when building the new
nouveau
- The upstream version of nouveau ddx is 1.2.0, and the rpm version is
2.1.5
- I can't uninstall the xorg-x11-drv-nv driver to test nouveau from
source without nuking the nv driver too.
I understand that one day the nouveau ddx will replace the nv ddx, but this can be accomplished with standard rpm obsoletes rather than shipping the nouveau source in the nv srpm. For me, I think the proper way of doing this would be to:
- Have a nouveau srpm *and* a nv srpm - they are different codebases and
have different version numbers
+1 I see no reason why they should be in the same srpm.
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:03:19 +0000 Richard Hughes hughsient@gmail.com wrote:
- Have a nouveau srpm *and* a nv srpm - they are different codebases and
have different version numbers
- Somehow fix the brokenness that has lead to the version number
xorg-x11-drv-nouveau-2.1.5 being installed when actually installed was xorg-x11-drv-nouveau-1.2.0
This seems like the right thing to do. To resolve the version problems you probably have to bump the epoch on nouveau and imho this situation is a valid reason to do so.
- Andreas
On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 12:15 +0100, Andreas Bierfert wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:03:19 +0000 Richard Hughes hughsient@gmail.com wrote:
- Have a nouveau srpm *and* a nv srpm - they are different codebases and
have different version numbers
- Somehow fix the brokenness that has lead to the version number
xorg-x11-drv-nouveau-2.1.5 being installed when actually installed was xorg-x11-drv-nouveau-1.2.0
This seems like the right thing to do. To resolve the version problems you probably have to bump the epoch on nouveau and imho this situation is a valid reason to do so.
Fine with me. Wish I'd noticed the version number skew earlier.
- ajax
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 10:46 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
Fine with me. Wish I'd noticed the version number skew earlier.
Do you want me to resubmit the nouveau driver as a separate package, or are you okay with just splitting it up? FWIW, nouveau is about twice as quick as the nv driver for me on 2D, and feels so much snappier. It would be great to have an updated snapshot for F9.
Richard.
Richard Hughes wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 10:46 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
Fine with me. Wish I'd noticed the version number skew earlier.
Do you want me to resubmit the nouveau driver as a separate package, or are you okay with just splitting it up? FWIW, nouveau is about twice as quick as the nv driver for me on 2D, and feels so much snappier. It would be great to have an updated snapshot for F9.
Should we consider making it the default for Fedora 9?
Rahul
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 12:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Richard Hughes wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 10:46 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
Fine with me. Wish I'd noticed the version number skew earlier.
Do you want me to resubmit the nouveau driver as a separate package, or are you okay with just splitting it up? FWIW, nouveau is about twice as quick as the nv driver for me on 2D, and feels so much snappier. It would be great to have an updated snapshot for F9.
Please do, we can drop the snapshots from the nv package then,
Should we consider making it the default for Fedora 9?
Not until the nouveau project does a release they consider stable, it still doesn't work in all cases nv does...
granted I do think we should ship nouveau with randr 1.2 turned on by default in our version.
Dave.
Rahul Sundaram pisze:
Richard Hughes wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 10:46 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
Fine with me. Wish I'd noticed the version number skew earlier.
Do you want me to resubmit the nouveau driver as a separate package, or are you okay with just splitting it up? FWIW, nouveau is about twice as quick as the nv driver for me on 2D, and feels so much snappier. It would be great to have an updated snapshot for F9.
Should we consider making it the default for Fedora 9?
Please, do not...
It's not yet ready...
Le mercredi 20 février 2008 à 10:11 +0100, Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek a écrit :
Rahul Sundaram pisze:
Richard Hughes wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 10:46 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
Fine with me. Wish I'd noticed the version number skew earlier.
Do you want me to resubmit the nouveau driver as a separate package, or are you okay with just splitting it up? FWIW, nouveau is about twice as quick as the nv driver for me on 2D, and feels so much snappier. It would be great to have an updated snapshot for F9.
Should we consider making it the default for Fedora 9?
Please, do not...
It's not yet ready...
Anyway till most rawhide testers have access to an up-to-date packaged snapshot, I don't see how we can judge one way or the other.
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 10:14 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 20 février 2008 à 10:11 +0100, Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek a écrit :
Rahul Sundaram pisze:
Richard Hughes wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 10:46 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
Fine with me. Wish I'd noticed the version number skew earlier.
Do you want me to resubmit the nouveau driver as a separate package, or are you okay with just splitting it up? FWIW, nouveau is about twice as quick as the nv driver for me on 2D, and feels so much snappier. It would be great to have an updated snapshot for F9.
Should we consider making it the default for Fedora 9?
Please, do not...
Sure, it shouldn't be default yet, but it should be up to date.
It's not yet ready...
Anyway till most rawhide testers have access to an up-to-date packaged snapshot, I don't see how we can judge one way or the other.
Totally. Hint hint :-)
Richard.
It's not yet ready...
Anyway till most rawhide testers have access to an up-to-date packaged snapshot, I don't see how we can judge one way or the other.
Totally. Hint hint :-)
Okay I've submitted a new package request, #433738
http://people.fedoraproject.org/~airlied/nouveau/
contains the spec and src rpm, I've bumped the epoch to 1 to get around the issue.
When it is ready to go I'll have to make a new -nv package without the nouveau bits in it..
I was going to throw it a koji but it seems to be suffering at the moment..
Dave.
devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Adam Jackson -
Andreas Bierfert -
David Airlie -
drago01 -
Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Rahul Sundaram -
Richard Hughes