[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: vkd3d



On 28.01.19 02:17, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 10:54 PM Jens Reyer wrote:
>>>> Can you give me DM upload rights, so that I can upload to stretch-backports?
>>>
>>> DM upload yes, but a stretch backport may be a cause of more problems
>>> than its worth.
>>
>> Since this is a major new feature of 4.0 I'd really like to provide it.
>>  If it causes too much trouble I may still drop it.
> 
> The backports instructions [0] say to build-depend on other backports
> only when specifically required by the package being backported.
> 
> vkd3d is not required by wine, it is optional.  So, that instruction
> would not be met.  Additionally, many users will prefer wine backports
> that are not entangled with vulkan and video driver backport updates.

Yes, vkd3d is not required by wine.  But if I make a backport of wine
because of the new vulkan feature then it is.  But more importantly: the
entanglement won't happen, see below.

In my previous answer I tried to address your concerns about vulkan not
being ready, but I see I went "too far", updating other libraries should
be avoided.

My idea for a backports-versioned recommends of libvulkan1 would not
work anyway, because in a test that led to libvulkan1:amd64 being
uninstalled, instead of updating it on amd64 and installing it on i386.
 This behavior by apt makes sense in hindsight.

However a no-change wine backport builds with vulkan/stretch and
vkd3d/stretch-backports.  If users install this backported wine their
system libraries won't be changed, libvulkan1 stays in its stable version.

So I see no drawback for non-vulkan users with a no-change wine
backport, and assume at least some benefits for vulkan users.  Users who
want to use vulkan then still may manually update their vulkan packages.
 I assume their experience would be better if wine was built against a
backported libvulkan-dev, but I agree this wouldn't be good for
non-vulkan users.

Did I miss something?  Do you object to this plan for a no-change wine
backport (building with a backported vkd3d)?


I tested this successfully (output edited for readability):

$ apt install wine=4.0-1~bpo9+1 wine32=4.0-1~bpo9+1 wine64=4.0-1~bpo9+1
libwine=4.0-1~bpo9+1 libwine:i386=4.0-1~bpo9+1 fonts-wine=4.0-1~bpo9+1

$ dpkg -l | grep '^ii' | grep ~bpo
ii  fonts-wine               4.0-1~bpo9+1
ii  libvkd3d1:amd64          1.1-2~bpo9+1
ii  libvkd3d1:i386           1.1-2~bpo9+1
ii  libwine:amd64            4.0-1~bpo9+1
ii  libwine:i386             4.0-1~bpo9+1
ii  virtualbox-guest-dkms    5.2.24-dfsg-4~bpo9+1
ii  virtualbox-guest-utils   5.2.24-dfsg-4~bpo9+1
ii  wine                     4.0-1~bpo9+1
ii  wine32:i386              4.0-1~bpo9+1
ii  wine64                   4.0-1~bpo9+1

$ dpkg -l '*vulkan*' | grep '^ii'
ii  libvulkan1:amd64         1.0.39.0+dfsg1-1
ii  libvulkan1:i386          1.0.39.0+dfsg1-1


Greets
jre



Reply to: