Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 60

Thread: AMD Radeon GPUs Run Great With Linux 3.11 Kernel, Mesa 9.3-devel

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    soso it really hurts, I sit here with the cutting edge *cough* archlinux with mesa 9.1 while 9.3 tests are out.

    pfff I dont really know who I have to blame here more, is it mesas fault for having 20 unstable-branches (normaly oyu have 1 and the rest are feature branches) never heard of release early release often, or unflexibility of archlinux folks.
    I am running Kubuntu, with the xorg-edgers PPA (latest mesa plus drivers), I compile the kernel with a simple script that allows me to configure and produce deb packages and later installing, so I am running 3.10 which is great for my new haswell i5-4670k. I also use a Kubuntu PPA to run the lastest KDE. Things are good

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    142

    Default

    AMD Radeon GPUs Run Great With Linux 3.11 Kernel
    Funny my Radeon HD 4770 doens't run at all since Linux kernel 3.10.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    76

    Default Radeon HD 4770

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuc!eoN View Post
    Funny my Radeon HD 4770 doens't run at all since Linux kernel 3.10.
    Mine is running just fine, this is this one:

    Code:
    #uname -a
    Linux breches 3.10.5-031005-generic #201308040618 SMP Sun Aug 4 10:19:06 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
    
    #lspci -vnn
    01:00.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] nee ATI Radeon HD 4770 [RV740] [1002:94b3] (prog-if 00 [VGA controller])
    	Subsystem: PC Partner Limited Device [174b:1170]

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuc!eoN View Post
    Funny my Radeon HD 4770 doens't run at all since Linux kernel 3.10.
    You might try the patch on this bug:
    https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60674

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droste View Post
    • master (9.3-dev): unstable.
    • 9.2: latest stable that's currently in the rc phase. It's going to be released on Aug 22.
    • 9.1. latest released stable

    which other big project does such stupid stuff? Even debian freezes only one version and then release it and then after some time they freeze another one... there are maybe several branches but basicly there are all there for freezing exactly one release at a time (stupid system also btw, and yes its a distro not comparable to a developed softare...)

    Kernel... they stable exactly one version they have a next version but they dont call it 3.x+1 before 3.x is out. lets take wine... they dont do such stuff... wayland? hmm they release also first 1.0 before they release other 1.x stuff. is there any other example of doing such stuff?

    I mean if it would be called mesa next I would have no problem... but get mesa 9.2 sooner in a state you can life with a release version. you can release-numbers are cheap, so you can later one for debian folks release a 9.2.1 oder 9.2.2 version.

    Yes but ok having a garbage release-numbering isnt the main fault, the main fault is arch linux think that stable versioning from upstream is what you have to look at. there are people that release early kde versions in pre alpha state as (stable) and there are such mesa guys who think we have to be more perfekt stable than debian. So arch guys should find a point of stableness oldness they want and then use such version when its on this state...

    even linus knows that drivers are more important and that perfekt 100 years testing of the code isnt importent so the last stuff he accepts in late rc states is driver patches mostly grafics stuff. So being here hyper-conservative on mesas site sucks.

    its totaly unbelivable, in arch you have kernel 3.10 as first distro or so, while in fedora it came pretty late, but 200 months ago where fedora 19 came out it had integrated mesa 9.2 and was super fast and 1000% stable.

    Again main point is arch linux guys make some stupid desitions. Sadly fedora makes me also not perfektly happe, there we have the 3rd paket dependency needed for a good amd htpc with mesa drivers. there is no package for xbmc 13 and 12 does not work at least not with some extra console magic to get xbmc 12 and the new vdpau drivers (kernel 3.10 + mesa 9.2) running.


    You use 2 distros that are more or less blamed to be bleeding or cutting edge but important stuff is way to old on both.

    But ok fedora is here better at least... I tend to like fedora over hyper-stable debianish arch more and more.

    Only AUR and the wiki lets me stay also in arch at the moment. if fedoras ppa alternative gets as complete as ubuntus its the best distro right now, sadly its not.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    which other big project does such stupid stuff? Even debian freezes only one version and then release it and then after some time they freeze another one...
    I thought it was pretty standard practice, actually.

    After a period of development, you have a feature freeze to prepare a new release. So you branch the release candidate away from the development branch. From that point on, only bugfixes go into the rc branch, new functionality goes into development branch.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    which other big project does such stupid stuff? Even debian freezes only one version and then release it and then after some time they freeze another one... there are maybe several branches but basicly there are all there for freezing exactly one release at a time (stupid system also btw, and yes its a distro not comparable to a developed softare...)
    ????

    This is _exactly_ what mesa is doing. 9.1 was released, development went on in master as 9.2-dev (like kernel 3.x-rcX). After some time 9.2-dev got branched to 9.2 to be released ("frozen" as you might call it) and new feature development is not allowed there only bug fixes until release. The "feature development" goes on in master, now as 9.3-dev.

    9.1 is still a branch where fixes may get backported to and in case there are enough of them 9.1.x gets released (you might call it LTS or whatever).

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    soso it really hurts, I sit here with the cutting edge *cough* archlinux with mesa 9.1 while 9.3 tests are out.

    pfff I dont really know who I have to blame here more, is it mesas fault for having 20 unstable-branches (normaly oyu have 1 and the rest are feature branches) never heard of release early release often, or unflexibility of archlinux folks.

    I mean fedora hat mesa 9.2 from the beginning, my dad using it since then without problems, so I think a bit both but mostly arch linux. If you want a recent X stack arch is not the way to go.

    Yes arch has other advantages great wiki and some packages fedora dont have.

    So because it seems that arch linux devs are not asking themselves how stable stuff is they take what gets signed stable by upstream in blind believe that before that its garbage and with that tag it must be good enough, so when do we see we finaly 9.2 tagged as stable by the mighty gods so I can hope to see finaly after 2-3 months stable mesa 9.2 (thats the reallity despite different tagging) here in arch mesa 9.2.

    BTW for what again is testing tree in arch? And yes I know there is AUR, but please try to build any of that mesa builds without rewriting dependencies and pray to god and compile for hours on my zacate machine its not happening, it is about factor 10 easier to compile a own kernel and get it running then replacing the X stack with its 10 billion dependencies.
    you didnt look hard enough, lcarlier pkgbuild is binary and ready to test and it include the latest ag5df kernels for DPM

    here is the link http://pkgbuild.com/~lcarlier/mesa-git/x86_64/

    just download the latest of each and do "pacman -U *tar.xz" as root

    note: this are binaries and don't require recompile anything, if anything provided by stable arch need unstable deps will be here too in binary form

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,121

    Default

    the lib32..... are not needed if you don't use multilib btw, skip them if like me if you use a pure 64 arch

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    you didnt look hard enough, lcarlier pkgbuild is binary and ready to test and it include the latest ag5df kernels for DPM

    here is the link http://pkgbuild.com/~lcarlier/mesa-git/x86_64/

    just download the latest of each and do "pacman -U *tar.xz" as root

    note: this are binaries and don't require recompile anything, if anything provided by stable arch need unstable deps will be here too in binary form
    thx for that hint, is there no wiki site or any other site that links to this and describes it, how are you supposed to find it, search mesa*.tar.xz over google file search?

    Sorry want to stop bitching ^^ but at least I get know a valid hint.


    For all the others I alraedy said that mesas version scheme is not the primary problem here, and that I find that archlinux is the main problem for me here.

    To give another 2 example that its not normal, fedora... they have rawhide but they branch from that a current +x version when x is out the final version not a rc or beta. Or take ubuntu they also only announce the branch of ubuntu next wenn ubuntu is out.

    like I said distros are maybe something different.

    But the main point I was saying is that calling it version X+1 when version X is not out (as final x.0 version) is very strange, I dont know any other projekt that does that. Like the kernel they call it NEXT not x+1 till x is out.

    Firefox the same libreoffice the same...


    is kde doing this? they have a very special version system so maybe they do that too? special in maybe extreme classic, so when its done its done instead of the now in bigger opensource projects main scheme release to a date and look whats done till then. thats a bit like mesa? not having fixed release dates. But I think they also dont do that? I am not using kde so I am not shure here? Or give me another 1 bigger projekt that does call its next branch official version xy. Or is it only a branch but no tag? A branch I would think is okish.

    The main problem I have here is I think that they dont tagged any 9.2ish version. no 9.2 rc1 or at least beta 1 or something. make at least one rc1 if you really want to "freeze" it very long make if you want 1000 rc-s but dont release nothing.
    Last edited by blackiwid; 08-14-2013 at 07:38 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •