Where does the livna repository fit in with FC9?

[Rodd Clarkson]

On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 14:13 -0600, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-04-06 at 01:18 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 15:04 -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Christopher A. Williams
> > >> <chrisw01 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > > I already knew about the new ABI in X on F9. One would think that if
> > > there are apparently current nVidia drivers in a Rawhide oriented
> > > development repo that they would use the new ABI. Otherwise, why waste
> > > the space on a disk?
> > > 
> > > Guess I assumed wrong and should have considered these drivers trash
> > > from the start. So much for thinking they (the Livna maintainers) were
> > > ahead of the game. To that end, I'm sure plenty of folks are already
> > > yelling at nVidia, not that I won't join the chorus... :)
> > 
> > If the older proprietary drivers are broken with the new ABI, there is 
> > nothing Livna maintainers can do as they don't have the rights to the 
> > code to fix it. The open drivers like Intel work fine. So does the 2D nv 
> > driver for that matter.
> 
> I wasn't blaming the Livna maintainers - rather I had hoped they had
> more access than they apparently do. I've read on NV News there is a
> beta driver for X version 1.5, but it is apparently a closed, private
> beta.

Don't quote me on this, but I believe that the way kernel mod related
packages (like nvidia) are being handled in livna is being changed for
f9, and that the current nvidia driver (while it doesn't work) is
actually a proof of concept (which should translate into a working
driver when nvidia get something out)


R

-- 
"It's a fine line between denial and faith.
 It's much better on my side"