Disown request: nvidia-pae
 

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please disown nvidia-pae[1], it's outdated for more than a month now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

Disown request: nvidia-pae
 

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 please disown nvidia-pae[1], it's outdated for more than a month now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

Disown request: nvidia-pae
 

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 please disown nvidia-pae[1], it's outdated for more than a month now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

OK, done.

--
Jonathan Steel

Disown request: nvidia-pae
 

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Dave Reisner <d@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 please disown nvidia-pae[1], it's outdated for more than a month now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