x11/nvidia-{driver, settings, xconfig}: why not the latest available version (290.10)?

[Conrad J. Sabatier]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:33:58 +0000
Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 04:44:04PM +0800, Denise H. G. wrote:
> > On 2011/12/24 at 08:41, "Conrad J. Sabatier" <conrads at cox.net>
> > wrote:
> > > Just wondering why the x11/nvidia-{driver,settings,xconfig} ports
> > > have yet to be updated to the latest version (290.10).  Are there
> > > any known issues with any of these newer versions that would make
> > > such an upgrade ill-advised?
> > > 
> > > FWIW, I've been running nvidia-driver version 290.10 since
> > > shortly after it was made available on the Nvidia site, and
> > > haven't run across any issues that can be directly attributed to
> > > the driver, at least, not to the best of my knowledge.
> > 
> > 290.10 has some issues on text redrawing as far I experience. I have
> > also been running 290.10 for quite a while. Some apps, especially
> > emacs and gnome-terminal will fail redrawing text areas while, e.g.
> > scrolling. And x11 cursor cannot sometimes be displayed correctly.
> > 
> > When I downgrade to 285.09.05, things seem to be OK.
> 
> Yes, there are existing issues with their latest version, which
> delaying update of the port.  But we'll get there, eventually.  ;-)
> 
> > > As an aside, I've also been wondering for quite a while now why
> > > the nvidia-driver port isn't under the x11-drivers category,
> > > rather than simply x11.  Not awfully important, just curious.  :-)
> 
> Short answer: because it is not just driver in xorg sense.  For long
> answer, see e.g. this:
> 
> 	http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/121930

Yes, Eitan directed me to that link yesterday.  Makes perfect sense.
 
> Theoretically, I could split the port into driver (kernel + xorg
> server parts), libGL and linux compat libs; some GNU/Linux distros do
> that.  But I really prefer to maintain one port than keeping three or
> five in sync.  It makes sense if any of these subports could be used
> independently, but this is not true at least for now.

Yes, of course.  I'm sure the users as well would prefer not to have it
split into more than one port.

Thanks for the great work you've done already on this port.  And Merry
Christmas!  :-)

-- 
Conrad J. Sabatier
conrads at cox.net