[arch-general] remove HWD from extra and wiki! - Arch-general - lists.archlinux.org

newer
[arch-general] opensp compile fails

[arch-general] remove HWD from extra and wiki!

older
[arch-general] Mailman archives...

Amanai

2 Dec 2008 2 Dec '08

11:32 p.m.

I think HWD is full of bugs and several times I was running in some problems with HWD. If you guys can't fix it, don't provide it. Anyway HWD is not maintained anymore.

Show replies by date

Grigorios Bouzakis

2 Dec 2 Dec

11:43 p.m.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Amanai wrote:

I think HWD is full of bugs and several times I was running in some problems with HWD. If you guys can't fix it, don't provide it. Anyway HWD is not maintained anymore.

Hi, have you you bothered to contact Rasat and ask him about it first? People (including me) said the same things about hwd in the past but Rasat proved us wrong. It works OK here. If its buggy for youm contact Rasat first and tell him to let the developers know about his intentions if he actually doesnt want to maintain hwd anymore. Sidenote: HWD is just a helper. Its not supposed to do all the work for you. Greg

Thayer Williams

11:56 p.m.

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Amanai wrote:

...
I think HWD is full of bugs and several times I was running in some problems with HWD. If you guys can't fix it, don't provide it. Anyway HWD is not maintained anymore.

Hi, have you you bothered to contact Rasat and ask him about it first? People (including me) said the same things about hwd in the past but Rasat proved us wrong. It works OK here. If its buggy for youm contact Rasat first and tell him to let the developers know about his intentions if he actually doesnt want to maintain hwd anymore. Sidenote: HWD is just a helper. Its not supposed to do all the work for you.

The version of hwd provided by extra works fine for me as well, however the PKGBUILD currently does not compile. I only recently adopted this package, so I haven't had an opportunity to troubleshoot it yet. However, if someone finds a bug with the existing version, please file a report and I will look into it.

Pierre Schmitz

3 Dec 3 Dec

12:10 a.m.

Am Mittwoch 03 Dezember 2008 00:56:56 schrieb Thayer Williams:

The version of hwd provided by extra works fine for me as well

Well, it does not produce working xorg.conf files. However: X -configure should be prefered; so there is no need for hwd (anymore). -- Pierre Schmitz Clemens-August-Straße 76 53115 Bonn Telefon 0228 9716608 Mobil 0160 95269831 Jabber pierre@jabber.archlinux.de WWW http://www.archlinux.de

Grigorios Bouzakis

12:14 a.m.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

Am Mittwoch 03 Dezember 2008 00:56:56 schrieb Thayer Williams:

...
The version of hwd provided by extra works fine for me as well

Well, it does not produce working xorg.conf files. However: X -configure should be prefered; so there is no need for hwd (anymore).

If you put it this way there probably never was a reason for hwd. But hwd doesnt only produce xorg configuration files. It lists the appropriate kernel modules for your hardware in a very user friendly way. I guess lshwd did that in the past. Greg

Attila

7:50 p.m.

On Mittwoch, 3. Dezember 2008 01:14 Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:

If you put it this way there probably never was a reason for hwd. But hwd doesnt only produce xorg configuration files. It lists the appropriate kernel modules for your hardware in a very user friendly way. I guess lshwd did that in the past.

lspci can list the kernel moduls with a nice output too (option -k) and you don't have to be root for this. That is why i prefer it. This is only an information because you the devs have it better what should happens with hwd. See you, Attila

Pierre Chapuis

12:20 a.m.

Le Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:10:34 +0100, Pierre Schmitz a écrit :

Well, it does not produce working xorg.conf files. However: X -configure should be prefered; so there is no need for hwd (anymore).

It doesn't provide working xorg.conf files only since xorg 1.5 was moved to extra. That was less than 5 days ago... I believe it will be updated to take the changes into account. To me, hwd is a very useful tool, so please don't remove it from extra without a second thought. -- catwell

RedShift

10:19 a.m.

Pierre Chapuis wrote:

Le Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:10:34 +0100, Pierre Schmitz a écrit :

...
Well, it does not produce working xorg.conf files. However: X -configure should be prefered; so there is no need for hwd (anymore).

It doesn't provide working xorg.conf files only since xorg 1.5 was moved to extra. That was less than 5 days ago... I believe it will be updated to take the changes into account.

To me, hwd is a very useful tool, so please don't remove it from extra without a second thought.

Well I got to say about this that hwd has never produced a 100% accurate result for me on all kinds of systems. Even my old soundblaster live is wrongly detected as an audigy card. Let alone that I would trust this tool before the official Xorg tools to generate an X config. Glenn

timetrap

7:35 p.m.

KISS dictates that we abandon abstraction tools as much as possible. Especially those tools that duplicate functionality. hwd should not be maintained any longer than its usefulness dictates. If you REALLY like this version of hwd, AUR would be a good place to keep it. On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:19 AM, RedShift wrote:

Pierre Chapuis wrote:

...
Le Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:10:34 +0100, Pierre Schmitz a écrit :

...
Well, it does not produce working xorg.conf files. However: X -configure should be prefered; so there is no need for hwd (anymore).

It doesn't provide working xorg.conf files only since xorg 1.5 was moved to extra. That was less than 5 days ago... I believe it will be updated to take the changes into account.

To me, hwd is a very useful tool, so please don't remove it from extra without a second thought.

Well I got to say about this that hwd has never produced a 100% accurate result for me on all kinds of systems. Even my old soundblaster live is wrongly detected as an audigy card. Let alone that I would trust this tool before the official Xorg tools to generate an X config.

Glenn

Daenyth Blank

7:39 p.m.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 14:35, timetrap wrote:

KISS dictates that we abandon abstraction tools as much as possible. Especially those tools that duplicate functionality. IMO, the most KISS thing to do with it is keep it, but in the next release, remove the -x function entirely.

Thayer Williams

7:45 p.m.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Daenyth Blank wrote:

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 14:35, timetrap wrote:

...
KISS dictates that we abandon abstraction tools as much as possible. Especially those tools that duplicate functionality. IMO, the most KISS thing to do with it is keep it, but in the next release, remove the -x function entirely.

I'm going to nip this in the bud here and make it clear that I have no intention of abandoning hwd. Unless the Gov says otherwise, it's staying in extra. hwd does more than just generate xorg configs and even then I think it can be updated to generate 'correct' configs. We're talking about feature requirements that *just* went public in the past week. What's the rush?

Aaron Griffin

7:55 p.m.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Thayer Williams wrote:

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Daenyth Blank wrote:

...
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 14:35, timetrap wrote:

...
KISS dictates that we abandon abstraction tools as much as possible. Especially those tools that duplicate functionality. IMO, the most KISS thing to do with it is keep it, but in the next release, remove the -x function entirely.

I'm going to nip this in the bud here and make it clear that I have no intention of abandoning hwd. Unless the Gov says otherwise, it's staying in extra. hwd does more than just generate xorg configs and even then I think it can be updated to generate 'correct' configs. We're talking about feature requirements that *just* went public in the past week.

What's the rush?

More to the point: hwd is not an arch tool. It's not even recommended by us anywhere as far as I can tell. It is a useful tool, sure, but why so much stink over one application in extra that is broken? It's just another third party application guys.

Amanai

8 p.m.

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:45:56 -0800, Thayer Williams wrote:

What's the rush?

Please change then the Archlinux Wiki "Xorg" If someone follow the configure with HWD he run's in trouble. I think HWD in AUR for some reason what ever is good enough. I used HWD for quick configure like i did for a long time. Well what I got was a mess and I end up spending more time to fixing this mess.

Thayer Williams

8:09 p.m.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Amanai wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:45:56 -0800, Thayer Williams wrote:

...
What's the rush?

Please change then the Archlinux Wiki "Xorg"

If someone follow the configure with HWD he run's in trouble. I think HWD in AUR for some reason what ever is good enough. I used HWD for quick configure like i did for a long time. Well what I got was a mess and I end up spending more time to fixing this mess.

Is there something preventing you from changing the wiki? If you see an outdated entry, by all means correct it--that's why we use a wiki in a first place. Adding a simple, "Be sure to remove the rgba path from the generated config" would suffice. I'm in the middle of exams, but this weekend I will see about getting an update from the developer.

Aaron Griffin

8:15 p.m.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Thayer Williams wrote:

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Amanai wrote:

...
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:45:56 -0800, Thayer Williams wrote:

...
What's the rush?

Please change then the Archlinux Wiki "Xorg"

If someone follow the configure with HWD he run's in trouble. I think HWD in AUR for some reason what ever is good enough. I used HWD for quick configure like i did for a long time. Well what I got was a mess and I end up spending more time to fixing this mess.

Is there something preventing you from changing the wiki? If you see an outdated entry, by all means correct it--that's why we use a wiki in a first place. Adding a simple, "Be sure to remove the rgba path from the generated config" would suffice.

Agreed. The wiki is publicly editable for a reason.

timetrap

7:47 p.m.

Hmm I like that idea. I honestly have not used hwd for anything but configuring X. Maybe add a line that says: 'hwd -x is no longer supported please use `X -configure`' Or would that be unArchful? On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 14:35, timetrap wrote:

...
KISS dictates that we abandon abstraction tools as much as possible. Especially those tools that duplicate functionality. IMO, the most KISS thing to do with it is keep it, but in the next release, remove the -x function entirely.

5630

Age (days ago)

5631

Last active (days ago)

Download

15 comments

10 participants

tags

participants (10)

Aaron Griffin
Amanai
Attila
Daenyth Blank
Grigorios Bouzakis
Pierre Chapuis
Pierre Schmitz
RedShift
Thayer Williams
timetrap