Summary: | >=x11-drivers/ati-drivers-10.12 wont work with sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.6.38 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Thomas Lercher <citylife> |
Component: | [OLD] Unspecified | Assignee: | Luca Barbato <lu_zero> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | enrico.tagliavini, fathazam, jouni.kosonen, m.debruijne, ryan.lucchese, x11, zeekec |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | AMD64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: |
New ebuild, including patch
Patch for 2.6.38 no version checking |
Description
Thomas Lercher
2011-03-15 21:31:40 UTC
Created attachment 266037 [details]
New ebuild, including patch
Created attachment 266039 [details, diff]
Patch for 2.6.38
I've added the patch and a ebuild that works for me (and i hope for some others). (In reply to comment #3) > I've added the patch and a ebuild that works for me (and i hope for some > others). The actual patch does not seem to appear on the Archlinux link, but the same patch can be found from e.g. debian ( http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.bugs.dist/browse_thread/thread/3b716dfe326fef23 , http://paste.debian.net/106284 ) I understand that the preferred way to provide ebuild updates is by a diff, so here's that: --- x11-drivers/ati-drivers/ati-drivers-11.2.ebuild 2011-02-18 15:46:03.000000000 +0200 +++ x11-drivers/ati-drivers/ati-drivers-11.2.ebuild 2011-03-16 00:15:09.000000000 +0200 @@ -294,6 +294,10 @@ if use modules; then # version patches # epatch "${FILESDIR}"/kernel/${PV}-*.patch + + if kernel_is -ge 2 6 38; then + epatch "${FILESDIR}"/ati-drivers-2.6.38.patch + fi if use debug; then sed -i '/^#define DRM_DEBUG_CODE/s/0/1/' \ "${MODULE_DIR}/firegl_public.c" \ A question, though: is it even necessary to user kernel_is -condition here? All four changes are "#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,38)" -blocks themselves. Created attachment 266055 [details, diff]
no version checking
Here's my patch without version checking. I agree with the previous poster. Tested on ati-drivers-10.12 linux-2.6.38
I mean to say, I agree with the ebuild changes proposed by Jouni, instead of checking in the patch itself. It's more consistent with the already existing ati-drivers-2.6.3x patches. Here's an ebuild diff for ati-drivers-10.12 --- x11-drivers/ati-drivers/ati-drivers-10.12.ebuild 2011-03-15 17:33:02.000000000 -0600 +++ x11-drivers/ati-drivers/ati-drivers-10.12.ebuild 2011-03-15 15:01:16.000000000 -0600 @@ -312,6 +312,11 @@ epatch "${FILESDIR}"/ati-drivers-2.6.37.patch || \ die "epatch ati-drivers-2.6.37.patch failed" fi + # Patch for 2.6.38 kernel + if kernel_is ge 2 6 38 ; then + epatch "${FILESDIR}"/ati-drivers-2.6.38.patch || \ + die "epatch ati-drivers-2.6.38.patch failed" + fi # These are the userspace utilities that we also have source for. # We rebuild these later. I agree with you, changes in the ebuild are enough. I also updated the title. (>=10.12 instead of only 11.2) Thank you everybody. I will apply this to the main tree in the weekend i hope. *** Bug 359439 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Pushed in cvs, thank you for the help |