Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 448346
Feature request: please put mach64.ko in kernel packages
Last modified: 2009-07-14 13:30:58 EDT
Description of problem:
Although the mach64.ko kernel module is part of the kernel package, this
feature request actually applies to mesa-libGL:
Please include the mach64.ko kernel module for ATI Rage Pro-class chipsets in
all future builds.
Why has this been delayed again? By the time this kmod is inculded, there
won't be anyone with Rage Pro chipsets left alive. The "security" concerns
that supposedly kept this out for so long were fixed two-and-a-half years ago,
according to the dri.freedesktop.org wiki: http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/
and also on the dri-users mailing lists, George F. fixed this in about Dec.
2006. There's people out there with these chipsets that could use this kmod,
and I've built it and been using it for some time now, and so have other
It works great, but it would be really, really great if this was included in
Fedora kernel packages.
If there is still a security concern, can someone (David Airlie?) please
address it and give a definitive answer as to whether it's fixed or not, and if
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install Fedora on a PC.
2. Watch no DRI happen with Rage Pro chipsets.
3. Watch DRI be OK with mach64.ko built from DRI git.
No Direct Rendering.
Direct Rendering enabled.
See links referenced above.
Thanx and Regards,
See also: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6242
That "bug" is marked as "RESOLVED" and "FIXED" and has been closed since
Thanx and Regards,
Mandriva One 2008 Spring Edition live cd has this enabled out of the box and it
works. Pity that the wireless causes a kernel panic when using rt61pci due to
the old kernel shipped. I would have moved to that rather than f9 otherwise.
I'd have to say, I love the old Apple hardware that runs on the PPC platform
and utilizes the ATI Rage Pro video chipset. And it vexes me exceedingly that
the Fedora 9 system requirements page lists G3 iMacs as being compatible with
When I wanted to install Fedora, I was expecting the good ol', beautiful GUI
installer, but after my screen went completely blank, I had to revert to a text
install. And I still don't have a GUI, because, as I'm told, this kernel
module is missing from my install.
I'm no computer expert (at ALL), but come on, guys! If this "security issue"
has been resolved for nearly two years, get with the program!
All us people with ATI Rage Pro vid cards and unusable FC9 installs are waiting
with baited breath.
So, what's the deal here, Mr. David Airlie?
Not only is the mach64.ko kernel module not included in F10 (Alpha/Beta/RCx) kernels, but the mach64_dri.so driver itself has been dropped from the mesa-dri-drivers package:
* Fri Sep 05 2008 Dave Airlie <firstname.lastname@example.org> 7.2-0.1
- latest snapshot - r300 bufmgr code
- stop building mach64, patch around some intel issues
We've asked nicely. I think that a quick, simple note here, explaining why this driver/kmod can't/won't be supported by Fedora, is not much to ask.
At the very least, if this bug report/feature request is not going to be acted on, please close it with a "Won't Fix", preferably stating why.
At this point adding mach64 drm support isn't likely to happen for F10, at least not for general release. It's not present in the upstream kernel, and no one seems to care enough about mach64 to make that happen. We can look into getting it merged though.
However, mach64 drm support is _not_ required for graphical functionality in Fedora. If, as in comment #3, you are unable to get plain 2d working on mach64, then that's unfortunate, but a separate bug.
(In reply to comment #5)
> At this point adding mach64 drm support isn't likely to happen for F10, at
> least not for general release. It's not present in the upstream kernel, and no
> one seems to care enough about mach64 to make that happen. We can look into
> getting it merged though.
> However, mach64 drm support is _not_ required for graphical functionality in
> Fedora. If, as in comment #3, you are unable to get plain 2d working on
> mach64, then that's unfortunate, but a separate bug.
I do not understand: "It's not present in the upstream kernel...". The mach64 drivers are not part of the kernel. True: the kmods are shipped with the kernels, and require the kernel to compile, but the code is part of Mesa/DRI. It's a matter of simply including "mach64" in the list of DRI kmods to compile. Nor do I understand the "security" concern: even if it still exists, if so few people use the driver such that "no one seems to care", then there can't be much security to be concerned about.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 9. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora
'version' of '9'.
Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version'
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 9's end of life.
Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 is end of life. If you
would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it
against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this
bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version,
please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.
Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes
bugs or makes them obsolete.
The process we are following is described here:
Fedora 9 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-07-10. Fedora 9 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.
If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.
Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.