Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge latest in a certain version series of a package
on 01/30/2014 08:30 AM Mick wrote the following: > On Wednesday 29 Jan 2014 19:37:39 Thanasis wrote: >>> Sometimes folks have to stay with a kernel series, because a vendor >>> binary patch forces them into this situation. >> >> That's my case, ie Nvidia drivers for a relatively old hardware (AGP >> Graphics). > > Wouldn't nouveau drivers overcome this problem, or is some other reason > keeping you with the proprietary NVidia drivers? > In 3D performance, the "nouveau" driver is my 2nd option.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge latest in a certain version series of a package
on 01/30/2014 12:50 AM Alan McKinnon wrote the following: >> On 30/01/2014 00:14, Thanasis wrote: >> Yea, but I think, this is the case for *all* packages, not only kernel >> sources, at least until now, isn't it? > > No, not at all. > > Kernels are different and portage treats them very differently. > > Everything else gets sane defaults that you can tweak if you want to, or > leave as-is if you don't. With kernels, you do not have this choice - > you MUST tweak and customize it to get something that even runs at all. > OK, maybe bootloaders are also a bit special too.. > > There is no common basis of comparison between kernels and everything > else, that is how different they are. Sort of like saying rabbits work > like horses because they both have 4 legs. Yes, the bit about legs is > true but it also completely misses the point - there's no realistic > situation in everyday life where a rabbit works like a horse. > > You are just going to have to face it - kernels are special. You either > deal with them The Gentoo Way, or run Ubuntu. Even genkernel doesn't > change this - all genkernel does is defer that same action onto someone > else, but the actions remain the same. > You are right, and I am not arguing about that. Of course kernels *are* and have *always* been treated differently, than other packages. All I wanted to say is, that even for other SLOTed packages, there is no option in general (except for the special cases where VARIABLES are assigned values in make.conf) for the user to choose to "follow" a number of specific "subseries" of versions of a package.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge latest in a certain version series of a package
On 30/01/2014 11:54, Thanasis wrote: > on 01/30/2014 12:50 AM Alan McKinnon wrote the following: >>> On 30/01/2014 00:14, Thanasis wrote: >>> Yea, but I think, this is the case for *all* packages, not only kernel >>> sources, at least until now, isn't it? >> >> No, not at all. >> >> Kernels are different and portage treats them very differently. >> >> Everything else gets sane defaults that you can tweak if you want to, or >> leave as-is if you don't. With kernels, you do not have this choice - >> you MUST tweak and customize it to get something that even runs at all. >> OK, maybe bootloaders are also a bit special too.. >> >> There is no common basis of comparison between kernels and everything >> else, that is how different they are. Sort of like saying rabbits work >> like horses because they both have 4 legs. Yes, the bit about legs is >> true but it also completely misses the point - there's no realistic >> situation in everyday life where a rabbit works like a horse. >> >> You are just going to have to face it - kernels are special. You either >> deal with them The Gentoo Way, or run Ubuntu. Even genkernel doesn't >> change this - all genkernel does is defer that same action onto someone >> else, but the actions remain the same. >> > > You are right, and I am not arguing about that. Of course kernels *are* > and have *always* been treated differently, than other packages. > All I wanted to say is, that even for other SLOTed packages, there is no > option in general (except for the special cases where VARIABLES are > assigned values in make.conf) for the user to choose to "follow" a > number of specific "subseries" of versions of a package. Yes, I see what you mean. Portage restricts you to $arch and the SLOTs, there's no mechanism whereby the user can easily pin down the exact ranges or versions they want to have. Your only option is to eternally fiddle with keywords and masks, but this is a high maintenance route. You also have to keep checking that your masks match what is in portage today. For most folks, that is much more trouble than it's worth. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
[gentoo-user] Re: emerge latest in a certain version series of a package
Thanasis asyr.hopto.org> writes: > That's my case, ie Nvidia drivers for a relatively old hardware (AGP > Graphics). > Nothing special. I am merely a home user, maintaining a few PCs. That's all. Nividia is a *VENDOR* that chooses not to provide information so drivers can be properly maintained, historically. ATI (AMD now) is a vendor who provides information so drivers can be maintained, even optimized, into perpetuity. Maybe you chose unwisely?(get ATI next time) unless you have a valid reason for choosing a "prick" as your vendor? As part of the open source community, I would think you have a repsonsibility to *reward those vendors that work generously with the greater open source community* ? caveat emptor! PS, if you card is very old, you can probably trade it for a similar ATI card, imho. I do not waiste my time on nvidia*. hth, James
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge latest in a certain version series of a package
On 30/01/2014 17:25, James wrote: > As part of the open source community, I would think you have a > repsonsibility to *reward those vendors that work generously with the > greater open source community* ? No, not actually. The only responsibility he has is to do whatever he feels like doing. It is nice to favour vendors who work with us but no-one is obligated to do so; trying to so is enforcing your moral code on another. That other is free to entirely reject your moral code at will. I get what you are saying but your statement is more accurate if you omit or change the word "responsibility". It does not belong. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge latest in a certain version series of a package
On Thursday 30 Jan 2014 15:25:47 James wrote: > Nividia is a *VENDOR* that chooses not to provide information so > drivers can be properly maintained, historically. ATI (AMD now) is a vendor > who provides information so drivers can be maintained, even optimized, into > perpetuity. > > Maybe you chose unwisely?(get ATI next time) unless > you have a valid reason for choosing a "prick" as your vendor? I've used nVidia cards for many years. When I bought my first one (maybe 20 years ago) ATI support in Linux was woeful, and the doggerel had it that the hardware was less competent too, so I chose nVidia. Since then I've seen more cries for help on this list from ATI owners than nVidia, so it's not clear to me which is the better choice these days. Since I don't do bigotry my choice is on technical grounds, and I don't need hardware 3D acceleration. So the jury's still out as far as I'm concerned. Well, maybe CUDA might ramp up my contribution rate to BOINC projects a bit. Again, no obvious winner. -- Regards Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage performance dropped considerably
On 30 Jan 2014, at 03:50 am, hasufell wrote: > I just tried paludis again (after some time). > ... > * you cannot unmask USE flags at all, not without hackery... and that > is really non-trivial for unmasking abi_x86_32 globally, because those > masks are scattered across a lot of files in profiles/ > The explanation from the paludis developer is simply wrong: > http://paludis.exherbo.org/trac/ticket/817 "WONTFIX: you can hack around it with your own profile if you need to deal with Gentoo not following its own policies correctly." Yes, that's the Ciaran McCreesh I remember. Stroller.
[gentoo-user] Re: emerge latest in a certain version series of a package
Peter Humphrey prh.myzen.co.uk> writes: > > Maybe you chose unwisely?(get ATI next time) unless > > I've used nVidia cards for many years. When I bought my first one > (maybe 20 years ago) ATI support in Linux was woeful, and the doggerel > had it that the hardware was less competent too, so I chose nVidia. > > Since then I've seen more cries for help on this list from ATI > owners than nVidia, so it's not clear to me which is the better choice > these days. > Since I don't do bigotry my choice is on technical grounds, > and I don't > need hardware 3D acceleration. So the jury's still out as > far as I'm concerned. Well, maybe CUDA might ramp up my contribution > rate to BOINC projects a bit. Again, no obvious winner. I agree with all you have said. However Nvidia's policies, not their hardware, is the problem, hence the degraded comment on their reputation. A company may struggle with the latest, robust hardware, but they do not have to behave as "jerks". Nvidia's lack of copperation with their old hardware, puts them in the "jerks" column in my mindset. Even cisco provides full and complete sources, (from russia with love!). The person is using old hardware, and for a very long time, ATI has been the better choice for folks using old (video) hardware. He's not pushing the limits of performance; he just wants (needs?) a video card with an open source solution. I like to (stongly) suggest to folks to use their "checkbook" to influence the behavior of vendors, ymmv. Folks with low_dollars are almost aways better off with ATI, particualar if they intend to run 'vintage video hardware', imho. peace and good hunting, James
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge latest in a certain version series of a package
on 01/30/2014 11:04 PM James wrote the following: > Peter Humphrey prh.myzen.co.uk> writes: > > >>> Maybe you chose unwisely?(get ATI next time) unless > >> >> I've used nVidia cards for many years. When I bought my first one >> (maybe 20 years ago) ATI support in Linux was woeful, and the doggerel >> had it that the hardware was less competent too, so I chose nVidia. >> >> Since then I've seen more cries for help on this list from ATI >> owners than nVidia, so it's not clear to me which is the better choice >> these days. > Since I don't do bigotry my choice is on technical grounds, >> and I don't > need hardware 3D acceleration. So the jury's still out as >> far as I'm concerned. Well, maybe CUDA might ramp up my contribution >> rate to BOINC projects a bit. Again, no obvious winner. > > I agree with all you have said. However Nvidia's policies, not their > hardware, is the problem, hence the degraded comment on their reputation. > A company may struggle with the latest, robust hardware, but they > do not have to behave as "jerks". Nvidia's lack of copperation with > their old hardware, puts them in the "jerks" column in my mindset. > Even cisco provides full and complete sources, (from russia with love!). > > The person is using old hardware, and for a very long time, ATI has > been the better choice for folks using old (video) hardware. He's not > pushing the limits of performance; he just wants (needs?) a video card with > an open source solution. I like to (stongly) suggest to folks to > use their "checkbook" to influence the behavior of vendors, ymmv. > > Folks with low_dollars are almost aways better off with ATI, particualar > if they intend to run 'vintage video hardware', imho. > James, I agree with you in general about supporting "open source friendly vendors", but in this case, I would agree with Peter, because I find that Nvidia although not so "open" as ATI, has been better supporting (quicker to release drivers) for its newer cards than ATI does. On the other hand, the old system I was talking about, is an Athlon 754 socket, with an NVIDIA G71 [GeForce 7800 GS] (rev a2) card. I believe this card can use up the system's AGP bus (and the CPU) to its limits, so I don't feel I should bother to change the card to an ATI one, since I wouldn't gain any performance, except perhaps, for a "radeon" driver in the kernel, which I doubt would perform as well as the Nvidia's one. Anyway, this Nvidia-vs-ATI discussion is going OT in the current thread. And I think that we can close the current thread here. Thanks to all for your help :)
[gentoo-user] media-libs/lilv-0.18.0 failed to compile
Hi,
On AMD64, recent Gentoo Linux, the library
media-libs/lilv-0.18.0
failed to compile:
* ERROR: media-libs/lilv-0.18.0::gentoo failed (configure phase):
* configure failed
*
* Call stack:
* ebuild.sh, line 93: Called src_configure
* environment, line 2131: Called waf-utils_src_configure
'--docdir=/usr/share/doc/lilv-0.18.0' '--no-bash-completion' '--dyn-manifest'
* environment, line 2678: Called die
* The specific snippet of code:
* CCFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" LINKFLAGS="${LDFLAGS}" "${WAF_BINARY}"
"--prefix=${EPREFIX}/usr" "${libdir}" "$@" configure || die "configure failed";
If wanted I will post all the files metioned below the above report to
the console. But I dont want to pollute the mailing list in
beforehand...may be someone has already solved this...?!?
Thank you very much for any help in advance!
Have a nice weekend!
Best regards,
mcc
