Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:35:47 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: nvidia-driver 64bit version Message-ID: <20091204153547.GA33041@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20091204163211.593d8377.ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> References: <20091204154724.4ce9a0cb.ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> <20091204151829.GA31164@FreeBSD.org> <20091204163211.593d8377.ehaupt@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 04:32:11PM +0100, Emanuel Haupt wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 03:47:24PM +0100, Emanuel Haupt wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > I was wondering if you're working on a port for the 64bit version of > > > the new beta state nvidia driver [1]. > > > > Yup, thanks for the pointer. I'm considering options right now. > > > > > > > > Since it's a completely different version it should IMO be separate > > > from x11/nvidia-driver. Maybe x11/nvidia-driver-amd64 and > > > x11/nvidia-driver could be renamed to x11/nvidia-driver-i386. > > > > This would be the easiest route, but I'm not sure this is the best > > thing to do. From user's perspective, one should be able to "cd > > category/port" and "make install". The rest (including taking care of > > architecture-dependent things) should be handled by underlying > > infrastructure. Right now I believe our bpm is capable of the task, > > and my pmake/bpm-fu is strong enough, we'll see. > > Right, you can put shared make functionality in a separate file and > include it by both ports. Personally I'd prefer two separate ports > rather than OPTIONS because the two drivers don't provide the same > functionality (ie missing TRIM support) and have different versions. In any case, I'll post a diff here for review before I make any commits WRT amd64 support in nvidia-driver. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091204153547.GA33041>