Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 16:32:11 +0100 From: Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: nvidia-driver 64bit version Message-ID: <20091204163211.593d8377.ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20091204151829.GA31164@FreeBSD.org> References: <20091204154724.4ce9a0cb.ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> <20091204151829.GA31164@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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 seperate file and include it by both ports. Personally I'd prefer two seperate ports rather than OPTIONS because the two drivers don't provide the same funcionality (ie missing TRIM support) and have different versions. Emanuel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091204163211.593d8377.ehaupt>