FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-26-2009, 04:17 PM
Eduardo Romero
 
Default Move the catalyst drivers from extra to AUR/Community

On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 11:01 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
>
> 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
> already
>
> 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).
My reason for it to go to community is so a TU can dedicate attention to
it, Andreas does not want to waste time on fixing this drivers as they
are of no particular interest to him. Maybe a TU in community can apply
patches to make the x86_64 9.2 release to work. But well, I'm fine with
moving them to AUR, there are some distributions that do not provide
catalyst at all in any form, comes to mind paldo GNU/Linux.
 
Old 02-26-2009, 04:57 PM
Jan de Groot
 
Default Move the catalyst drivers from extra to AUR/Community

On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 11:38 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
>
> Well, I guess what I was saying is: *can* we even fix it? I mean, if
> they release a broken driver, we can't exactly patch some closed
> source blob

I don't think we can fix most problems, but even if we were able to,
licensing does not permit us. One example is the use of /usr/lib64 which
is plain ugly. We can use sed on the binary files to load it
from /usr/lib, but that violates the license because we're not allowed
to distribute altered binaries.

Whatever happens, I'm preparing xorg-server 1.6 this week for testing. I
don't think AMD supports server-1.6 yet, but Nvidia does, so I see no
reason to stick this release in testing as long as we did with
server-1.5.
 
Old 02-26-2009, 05:27 PM
Eduardo Romero
 
Default Move the catalyst drivers from extra to AUR/Community

On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 18:57 +0100, Jan de Groot wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 11:38 -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> >
> > Well, I guess what I was saying is: *can* we even fix it? I mean, if
> > they release a broken driver, we can't exactly patch some closed
> > source blob
>
> I don't think we can fix most problems, but even if we were able to,
> licensing does not permit us. One example is the use of /usr/lib64 which
> is plain ugly. We can use sed on the binary files to load it
> from /usr/lib, but that violates the license because we're not allowed
> to distribute altered binaries.
>
> Whatever happens, I'm preparing xorg-server 1.6 this week for testing. I
> don't think AMD supports server-1.6 yet, but Nvidia does, so I see no
> reason to stick this release in testing as long as we did with
> server-1.5.
>
Aaron, what you say is true, I thought they could fix it, but as Jan
pointed out, is not legal to alter a blob. Didn't thought it that way so
Aaron you are right about moving this to AUR instead.

Jan, No catalyst does not support xorg-server-1.6 yet, another example
on how bad ATIs support is. I do vote for you not to hold xorg-server
that long waiting for them.
 
Old 03-01-2009, 08:49 AM
Andreas Radke
 
Default Move the catalyst drivers from extra to AUR/Community

This is what I've just sent to the closed AMD beta project list.


> I am actively trying to get the right development team lined up.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matthew
>
> On 7-Feb-09, at 12:03 PM, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> > No hint? Any other place where we can get support?
> >
> > -Andy


I try to follow the beta release announcements but reading things like
this make me angry wasting more time on this driver:

"...Required packaging changes

There are no driver changes that require updates to packaging scripts.

Deadline for packaging contributions

Release: NA
Deadline: NA

Next planned beta release on this release stream

TBD"

No communication or public documentation where things will move at all
happened. Beside ArchLinux all 64bit non-multilib LinuxFromScratch
users are affected and probably more distributions. We are also just
packaging Xorg 1.6 about we heard simply nothing here.

So we are about to remove support for closed catalyst drivers:

http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2009-February/010394.html

-Andy
 
Old 03-06-2009, 07:38 AM
Jan de Groot
 
Default Move the catalyst drivers from extra to AUR/Community

On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 22:38 -0400, Eduardo Romero wrote:
> And even hotter in the heels: ATI/AMT digs its own grave: 9.3 won't
> have
> xorg-server 1.6 support, so we will have to wait until 9.4 in April,
> maybe
> that will be middle to late april, so I say, as soon as someone takes
> this to
> AUR or Community this should be removed without a pity, they just
> demonstrate little seriousness to Linux and its support.

AMD is digging catalysts grave, not their own. Don't forget that AMD has
released specifications of all chips that are no longer supported by
their catalyst. Compare this to nvidia and then look at the development
speed of nouveau compared to xf86-video-ati.
At least we won't have users crying for Catalyst drivers in archlinux
anymore, as it's impossible to get these things working on any modern
linux distribution.
 
Old 03-18-2009, 04:54 PM
Andreas Radke
 
Default Move the catalyst drivers from extra to AUR/Community

It happened again: Ubuntu released a not yet published driver to their
unstable repos to prepare the 9.04 isos. See

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzE0Nw

The driver were not even published to the AMD beta program. Not one
word on the list about any progress with Xorg 1.6. That makes sense how
they treat the community beside the holy Canonical.

Well. Our community picked it already up and pushed a package to AUR and
I think this time it's not a license violation because Ubuntu will have
received a special ok to publish this driver.

So now I'm going to remove the drivers from extra very soon. Any
objections?

I'm also going to ask to remove my account from the "beta program".
It's a pity that our community will loose this last chance to catch the
non existent support.

If you want fun, read
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_beta_declassified&n um=1

Read the 2nd page and think about "what the program is not"...

I'm done with this closed crap now.

-Andy
 
Old 03-18-2009, 05:13 PM
Jan de Groot
 
Default Move the catalyst drivers from extra to AUR/Community

On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 13:58 -0400, Daenyth Blank wrote:
> I can just see the headlines now, "Arch Linux calls ATI crap, drops
> support for graphics"

What support for graphics? I thought the latest ATI drivers dropped
support for a lot of graphics
 
Old 03-19-2009, 09:42 AM
Andreas Radke
 
Default Move the catalyst drivers from extra to AUR/Community

Catalyst drivers are now part of the ArchLinux history

-Andy
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org