Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Fedora Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-development/)
-   -   rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+ (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-development/513226-rfc-headsup-graphics-driver-packaging-f16.html)

Adam Jackson 04-12-2011 04:12 PM

rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+
 
There are two major package classes in Fedora that provide graphics
drivers: xorg-x11-drv-*, and mesa-dri-drivers-*.

In F15, mesa-dri-drivers now only includes drivers with DRI2 support
(radeon, nvidia, intel) and the software renderer; if you want all the
older drivers you have to install mesa-dri-drivers-dri1. This list is:

i810, mga, r128, savage, sis, tdfx, unichrome

Basically all of this hardware is, ahem, inept. The most featureful
device supported by these drivers would be the MGA G550, which just
barely manages to do DirectX 7 (comparable to a Radeon 7000 or GeForce
2, both ~1999 vintage). All the others are back in the DX6 stone age.
For comparison, the baseline for the GPU in the phone in your pocket -
and that platform layers like clutter more or less expect - is GLES 2.0,
which is roughly comparable to DirectX 9. We're rapidly approaching the
point where the software renderer is going to be a more satisfying
experience than hardware 3d support for these chips, both for features
and for performance.

So in my ideal world, we would simply drop the -dri1 subpackage (and for
that matter, DRI1 support in the X server).

For 2D we've got an xorg-x11-drivers metapackage that includes, well,
pretty much everything, and which is included in comps as a default.
This is lame, because it means a bunch of backwater drivers end up as
critical path and can never possibly get tested. (Smolt says there are
all of 3 savage users. I assume the number of i740 users is actually
negative.) The list of video drivers that see any actual use is
probably something like:

ast, ati, cirrus, fbdev, geode, intel, mga, nouveau, openchrome,
qxl, sis/xgi, vesa, vmware

And input is even briefer (evdev, synaptics, wacom, vmmouse). I'd like
to chop the -drivers metapackage down to just this set, and either make
a new metapackage in optional for -drivers-retrocomputing or simply list
all the drivers there individually. Note that since we're keeping
drivers for fbdev and vesa we should still get graphics on most devices
even if the user doesn't explicitly ask for a native driver.

So that's the rough plan. Comments appreciated if I'm overlooking
anything.

- ajax
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Bill Nottingham 04-12-2011 04:23 PM

rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+
 
Adam Jackson (ajax@redhat.com) said:
> There are two major package classes in Fedora that provide graphics
> drivers: xorg-x11-drv-*, and mesa-dri-drivers-*.
>
> In F15, mesa-dri-drivers now only includes drivers with DRI2 support
> (radeon, nvidia, intel) and the software renderer; if you want all the
> older drivers you have to install mesa-dri-drivers-dri1. This list is:
>
> i810, mga, r128, savage, sis, tdfx, unichrome
>
> Basically all of this hardware is, ahem, inept. The most featureful
> device supported by these drivers would be the MGA G550, which just
> barely manages to do DirectX 7 (comparable to a Radeon 7000 or GeForce
> 2, both ~1999 vintage). All the others are back in the DX6 stone age.
> For comparison, the baseline for the GPU in the phone in your pocket -
> and that platform layers like clutter more or less expect - is GLES 2.0,
> which is roughly comparable to DirectX 9. We're rapidly approaching the
> point where the software renderer is going to be a more satisfying
> experience than hardware 3d support for these chips, both for features
> and for performance.
>
> So in my ideal world, we would simply drop the -dri1 subpackage (and for
> that matter, DRI1 support in the X server).
>
> For 2D we've got an xorg-x11-drivers metapackage that includes, well,
> pretty much everything, and which is included in comps as a default.
> This is lame, because it means a bunch of backwater drivers end up as
> critical path and can never possibly get tested. (Smolt says there are
> all of 3 savage users. I assume the number of i740 users is actually
> negative.) The list of video drivers that see any actual use is
> probably something like:
>
> ast, ati, cirrus, fbdev, geode, intel, mga, nouveau, openchrome,
> qxl, sis/xgi, vesa, vmware
>
> And input is even briefer (evdev, synaptics, wacom, vmmouse). I'd like
> to chop the -drivers metapackage down to just this set, and either make
> a new metapackage in optional for -drivers-retrocomputing or simply list
> all the drivers there individually. Note that since we're keeping
> drivers for fbdev and vesa we should still get graphics on most devices
> even if the user doesn't explicitly ask for a native driver.
>
> So that's the rough plan. Comments appreciated if I'm overlooking
> anything.

The question would be how we ensure that these additional drivers are in the
install image, or in the installed system, if necessary. Or do we not care
if they get vesa? How would users be informed/able to install drivers if
necessary? (I don't know that PK search is good here.)

Bill

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Adam Williamson 04-12-2011 04:34 PM

rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+
 
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 12:12 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:

> And input is even briefer (evdev, synaptics, wacom, vmmouse). I'd like
> to chop the -drivers metapackage down to just this set, and either make
> a new metapackage in optional for -drivers-retrocomputing or simply list
> all the drivers there individually. Note that since we're keeping
> drivers for fbdev and vesa we should still get graphics on most devices
> even if the user doesn't explicitly ask for a native driver.
>
> So that's the rough plan. Comments appreciated if I'm overlooking
> anything.

Well, the less intrusive alternative is just to make graphics drivers a
comps group rather than using a metapackage. Metapackages are generally
'frowned upon' in Fedora anyway, and you're supposed to do stuff with
comps groups. Doing it that way would remove the critical path
implications; we could then just add the important drivers to critpath
individually.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Peter Robinson 04-12-2011 05:05 PM

rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+
 
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 12:12 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
>
>> And input is even briefer (evdev, synaptics, wacom, vmmouse). *I'd like
>> to chop the -drivers metapackage down to just this set, and either make
>> a new metapackage in optional for -drivers-retrocomputing or simply list
>> all the drivers there individually. *Note that since we're keeping
>> drivers for fbdev and vesa we should still get graphics on most devices
>> even if the user doesn't explicitly ask for a native driver.
>>
>> So that's the rough plan. *Comments appreciated if I'm overlooking
>> anything.
>
> Well, the less intrusive alternative is just to make graphics drivers a
> comps group rather than using a metapackage. Metapackages are generally
> 'frowned upon' in Fedora anyway, and you're supposed to do stuff with
> comps groups. Doing it that way would remove the critical path
> implications; we could then just add the important drivers to critpath
> individually.

And have the most used drivers that are listed above set as "default"
and the retro ones set as optional. That way they're not there by
default but they're selectable at install for the couple of people
that do wish to use them (provided they do have enough RAM on those
machines to actually be able to install..... but that's a different
problem entirely!).

Peter
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Adam Jackson 04-12-2011 05:17 PM

rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+
 
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 09:34 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 12:12 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> > And input is even briefer (evdev, synaptics, wacom, vmmouse). I'd like
> > to chop the -drivers metapackage down to just this set, and either make
> > a new metapackage in optional for -drivers-retrocomputing or simply list
> > all the drivers there individually. Note that since we're keeping
> > drivers for fbdev and vesa we should still get graphics on most devices
> > even if the user doesn't explicitly ask for a native driver.
> >
> > So that's the rough plan. Comments appreciated if I'm overlooking
> > anything.
>
> Well, the less intrusive alternative is just to make graphics drivers a
> comps group rather than using a metapackage. Metapackages are generally
> 'frowned upon' in Fedora anyway, and you're supposed to do stuff with
> comps groups. Doing it that way would remove the critical path
> implications; we could then just add the important drivers to critpath
> individually.

Not that I object, but that's just moving the goalposts from "which
drivers in the metapackage" to "which drivers in comps". It doesn't
address the construction of the list.

- ajax
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Adam Jackson 04-12-2011 05:38 PM

rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+
 
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 12:23 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Adam Jackson (ajax@redhat.com) said:
> > So that's the rough plan. Comments appreciated if I'm overlooking
> > anything.
>
> The question would be how we ensure that these additional drivers are in the
> install image, or in the installed system, if necessary. Or do we not care
> if they get vesa? How would users be informed/able to install drivers if
> necessary? (I don't know that PK search is good here.)

To a first approximation, I deeply do not care. If you're choosing to
use an s3virge in 2011 you've already decided to make your life hard.

But if we're trying to be completionists about it, import the data
from /usr/share/hwdata/videoaliases/*.xinf into virtual Provides for
each driver package and teach packagekit or whatever how to cope.
Something like this:

http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-April/135004.html

But then, if we had _that_, comps could grow a fourth class for
"as-needed" and we'd just list all driver packages there, including cups
and webcam drivers and etc. Install image creation would pull them all
in; anaconda would filter the available as-needed's based on target
hardware.

In that scenario you'd still need to do manual selection of some driver
packages for critpathness, but, okay.

- ajax
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Nathaniel McCallum 04-12-2011 05:48 PM

rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+
 
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:38 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 12:23 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Adam Jackson (ajax@redhat.com) said:
> > > So that's the rough plan. Comments appreciated if I'm overlooking
> > > anything.
> >
> > The question would be how we ensure that these additional drivers are in the
> > install image, or in the installed system, if necessary. Or do we not care
> > if they get vesa? How would users be informed/able to install drivers if
> > necessary? (I don't know that PK search is good here.)
>
> To a first approximation, I deeply do not care. If you're choosing to
> use an s3virge in 2011 you've already decided to make your life hard.
>
> But if we're trying to be completionists about it, import the data
> from /usr/share/hwdata/videoaliases/*.xinf into virtual Provides for
> each driver package and teach packagekit or whatever how to cope.
> Something like this:
>
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-April/135004.html
>
> But then, if we had _that_, comps could grow a fourth class for
> "as-needed" and we'd just list all driver packages there, including cups
> and webcam drivers and etc. Install image creation would pull them all
> in; anaconda would filter the available as-needed's based on target
> hardware.
>
> In that scenario you'd still need to do manual selection of some driver
> packages for critpathness, but, okay.

With this approach, you have lost a critical feature: the ability for
you to change your hardware (or move the software bits to a different
computer) and have everything automatically work.

Nathaniel

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Casey Dahlin 04-12-2011 05:57 PM

rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+
 
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 01:48:19PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>
> With this approach, you have lost a critical feature: the ability for
> you to change your hardware (or move the software bits to a different
> computer) and have everything automatically work.
>
> Nathaniel

You lose it for a couple of strange usecases though:

1) Moving from a card that is up to date in what it supports to an older
card that isn't (rare).

2) Moving from one crappy ancient card to another (plausible, but still
rare).

The vesa driver should mean some workable video support in either case,
and from there, if we were really, truly concerned, we could detect the
need for the driver and prompt to install it. That's starting to sound
like the bad old days of kudzu though, and I'd be surprised if anyone
really felt this was worth that effort.

--CJD
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Adam Jackson 04-12-2011 06:00 PM

rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+
 
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:48 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:38 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > But then, if we had _that_, comps could grow a fourth class for
> > "as-needed" and we'd just list all driver packages there, including cups
> > and webcam drivers and etc. Install image creation would pull them all
> > in; anaconda would filter the available as-needed's based on target
> > hardware.
> >
> > In that scenario you'd still need to do manual selection of some driver
> > packages for critpathness, but, okay.
>
> With this approach, you have lost a critical feature: the ability for
> you to change your hardware (or move the software bits to a different
> computer) and have everything automatically work.

Assuming pk actually had this feature, the next time you booted pk would
happily tell you about what driver you're missing.

- ajax
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Nathaniel McCallum 04-12-2011 06:01 PM

rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+
 
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:57 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 01:48:19PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> >
> > With this approach, you have lost a critical feature: the ability for
> > you to change your hardware (or move the software bits to a different
> > computer) and have everything automatically work.
> >
> > Nathaniel
>
> You lose it for a couple of strange usecases though:
>
> 1) Moving from a card that is up to date in what it supports to an older
> card that isn't (rare).
>
> 2) Moving from one crappy ancient card to another (plausible, but still
> rare).
>
> The vesa driver should mean some workable video support in either case,
> and from there, if we were really, truly concerned, we could detect the
> need for the driver and prompt to install it. That's starting to sound
> like the bad old days of kudzu though, and I'd be surprised if anyone
> really felt this was worth that effort.

I think losing it in those cases is probably acceptable. My thought is
that the disk space for drivers is minimal, lets just support everything
(or at least the current stuff) in a single install. My concern isn't
moving to and/or between rare old cards. My concern is moving from
nouveau to intel or radeon... The "big" drivers should definitely be
installed on every system, regardless of its hardware.

Nathaniel

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:01 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.