[arch-dev-public] Xorg changes / DRM modules
Jan de Groot
jan at jgc.homeip.net
Thu Dec 24 04:23:40 EST 2009
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 11:21 +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:
> No problem. It built fine here on top of the rolled back extra stuff.
> I'll put new packages into testing. I guess we need to rebuild all
> related ddx driver packages. Anything else will require rebuilds? The
Xorg-server might need a rebuild because it is tied to the GL API stuff.
The drivers don't matter that much.
> The sad part is that we leave all people with modern Ati cards in the
> dark until upstream declares their code as stable. This will make them
> going back to software rasterizer and either force them to use the
> closed source driver or use weird self made git packages from AUR.
That's where users come in. I think it's better to have a -git driver
from AUR that is maintained, than a git snapshot in testing or extra
which isn't updated very often because it works on your X200m. You can
see this with intel also, where some users made an
> Because I'm also affected with my weird X200m card I'm still looking
> for a good solution how to offer a good set of binary packages people
> can use to try modern code. I could do this on my own like all other
> people from AUR but we could also setup an additional unstable repo at
> Gerolde. I could do this also in my public dir. I'd prefer to have
> people using one set of codebase for reporting bugs upstream. What do
> you think?
If you intend to maintain those drivers with regular updates, you're
free to do so. The issue with radeon is that it's not only the drivers,
but also kernel, mesa and libdrm.
More information about the arch-dev-public