[aur-general] Disown request: nvidia-pae

Felix Yan felixonmars at gmail.com
Mon Sep 17 23:10:44 EDT 2012

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Dave Reisner <d at falconindy.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:38:30PM +0200, Robert Knauer wrote:
>> Hello,
>> please disown nvidia-pae[1], it's outdated for more than a month now
>> and I mailed the maintainer on 1st of September and got no answer.
>> Thanks,
>> Robert
>> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40101
> Don't take this personally... you're just the one who happened to bring
> it up. Do we _really_ need all this duplication? Does every kernel in
> the AUR needs its own _from_ _source_ instructions to build kernel
> modules? Really, these should all be about 3-4 lines to change in the
> extra/nvidia PKGBUILD. Instead, we have...
> nvidia-apparmor
> nvidia-bede
> nvidia-bfs
> nvidia-bl
> nvidia-ck
> nvidia-custom
> nvidia-fbcondecor
> nvidia-ice
> nvidia-ll
> nvidia-lqx
> nvidia-mainline
> nvidia-pae
> nvidia-pf
> nvidia-rifs
> nvidia-rt
> nvidia-uksm
> nvidia-zen
> I'm sure these are all unique and beautiful in their own way, but
> really, they're all duplicates as far as I'm concerned. nvidia is the
> biggest offender of this, but it certainly applies to other modules as
> well.
> </rant>
> dave

So that's why I expect pacman to bring in dkms or dkms-like functions
for long so we only need something like dkms-nvidia.

As an example, [community-testing]/virtualbox-host-source is now using
dkms to build its kernel modules and it works very well. So I expect
AUR/dkms-nvidia to be moved into [community] or [extra] if possible
(it has already 94 votes too) and become recommended method for nvidia
module someday.

Just a side note that some of the packages, for example nvidia-rt, are
patched versions and not easy enough for user to just apply on the
[extra]/nvidia PKGBUILD.

Felix Yan
Twitter: @felixonmars
Wiki: http://felixc.at

More information about the aur-general mailing list