On Saturday 24 December 2005 16:31, Peter wrote: > Not really. glx does not compile at all and the entire pkg file has to be > extracted. Same amount of files being processed... No, because the glx part files needs to be processed by portage, too, and that's something that takes time, especially now that portage uses paxutils to find texrels and company.
> FBSD is a problem already. It's not even a valid arch at the moment I'm working on it, the problem is that we had to get rid of x86-fbsd keyword in arch.list to avoid devs wasting time from running repoman for x86-fbsd profiles. An alternative is to check CHOST. >Anything current with fbsd is at the best a > complete hack. In GLX? I don't really think so, a part a couple of special cases, the most of the ebuild works in the same manner for both of them, there are name changes due to the different versions. And for the kernel module, it's _completely_ different, that's why I don't want the Linux module and the FreeBSD module to be in the same ebuild. I have an nvidia-freebsd package on gentoo/alt overlay. > Then, there is one last issue you did not consider. If nvidia releases a > new driver, there is no dependency from kernel -> glx. This would make it a circular dep, I would say to poke portage devs about that. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE
pgpADVTsfLg2m.pgp
Description: PGP signature
