[ANNOUNCE] Deprecation of xf86-video-nv
airlied at gmail.com
Tue Mar 30 17:17:07 PDT 2010
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Piotr Gluszenia Slawinski
<curious at bwv190.internetdsl.tpnet.pl> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Andy Ritger wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Piotr Gluszenia Slawinski wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Andy Ritger wrote:
>>> > > Historically, NVIDIA developed and maintained the xf86-video-nv X >
>>> > > driver,
>>> > > Our advice to owners of NVIDIA GPUs running Linux is to use the VESA
>>> > > X
>>> > driver from the time of Linux distribution installation until they can
>>> > download and install the NVIDIA Linux driver from their distribution
>>> > repositories or from nvidia.com.
>>> then NVIDIA could be so kind and fix the "NVIDIA Linux driver"
>>> to build and work properly with alternate libc implementations, like
>>> uclibc (glibc is hard-linked in libGL supplied with The Driver)
>> Hello, Piotr.
>> No, glibc is not statically linked into NVIDIA's libGL.so, if that is what
>> you mean to imply.
> no, it just expects glibc being in the system.
>> If uclibc provided the same ABI as glibc then I would expect NVIDIA's
>> libGL.so to work with uclibc. However, my understanding is that binary
>> compatiblity (either with glibc or even with prior uclibc releases)
>> is a non-goal of the uclibc project.
> yes, it is not binary-compatible glibc.
>> For better or worse, the NVIDIA driver is provided as binary-only,
>> so it is not terribly well suited to deal with system library binary
>> interface changes.
>> - Andy
> well, and that is what i'm complaining about...
> mind you glibc will not be always binary compatible either across
> it's own versions - same
> as libc5 to glibc ("libc6") transition occured ad some point...
> this limits nvidia driver usage to specific libc implementation,
> with specific version.
> nv driver itself served well for i.e. people who could sacrifice
> 3d performance in i.e. netbooks, where they would rather focus
> on battery and storage usage when choosing libc implementation.
> if it quits being maintained and users are advised to move to
> binary driver - it would be nice to make it actually compile on such
Just to posit, if you are intending on installing the nvidia binary driver
on a niche built by hand system, then I don't think the glibc overheads
would give you much cause. Wierdly you'd have gotten better battery
life most likely using the binary driver since -nv doesn't have any powersaving
abilities. So you are probably shooting yourself in the face to spite your foot
More information about the xorg