[arch-dev-public] Move the catalyst drivers from extra to AUR/Community
aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Thu Feb 26 12:01:25 EST 2009
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Eduardo Romero <k3nsai at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here it is,
> Andreas Radke and I have talked about this and have come to a
> conclusion. The ATI catalyst drivers are in a pitiful state and AMD is
> doing close to nothing to improve the situation, they just take Linux as
> a joke. At least, that is the impression one gets when nvidia releases
> great drivers for Linux and ATI in the other hand is not showing any
> promises in making their drivers better and well supported.
> In the other hand the radeonhd driver, which is in extra shows some
> promise, and so far have been good, they have been able to make a good
> driver with only some documentation released by AMD, when AMD can't make
> one while being the makers, go figure out.
> This situation is worse in the x86_64 system, we have been stuck with
> catalyst 8.12 while i686 has 9.2 already, because AMD just wanted to
> break things at will, because their approach is very strange, break some
> things to improve others.
> That is why, we hope for a TU who can bring this drivers to community to
> raise his hand and help us with this task. Please, if you want to give
> catalyst the love they don't deserve but need, do not hesitate to offer
> yourself as the new maintainer. In the worse case scenario where no one
> raises his hand, the package should be moved to AUR. I personally would
> not want this, so please TUs respond. A TU will be able to do what is
> required for the best with this drivers, which includes making 9.2 and
> later work with x86_64.
> What do the other developers think? Any developer that wants to take
> care of them?
> PS: I do use this drivers, so I do care about them, but this is a choice
> that had to be made.
Hmm. My thinkpad has an ATI card in it, and I stopped using the
catalyst drivers a LONG time ago (a year? I know Travis was still
packaging them when I stopped).
So, I guess my actual usage follows this pattern, so maybe it's the
right way to go.
Still, I wonder if this is going to anger a lot of people. Probably,
but if they're using catalyst right now they're probably angry at it
I'm all for removing shitty packages, but I fear that moving it to
community would be simply moving the shit around instead of dealing
with it. Perhaps, at this juncture, it would make more sense in the
AUR (we'd have to kindly ask the TUs not to package it though).
More information about the arch-dev-public