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

Bug#418889: Packaging nouveau



On Sun Jun 01 04:10, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
> 
> > I can't see anything else obvious, I shall email debian-x and ask
> > whether it should be maintained in the XSF repositories.
> 
> Excellent; I saw your post and have incorporated the following changes:
> 
>  * Rename source package libdrm-snapshot => drm-snapshot.
>  * Remove X.Org "endorsements" from xserver-xorg-video-nouveau package
>    description.
> 
> So as I see it, the two issues that remain are:

I had a conversation about this with jcristau on IRC:

21:56 -!- Irssi: Starting query in oftc with jcristau
21:56 <jcristau> hi
21:57 <jcristau> one question about the nouveau packages, how do you get your libdrm-snapshot coinstallable with libdrm2?
21:57 <mjj29> hi
21:57 <mjj29> you don't
21:57 <mjj29> I believe
21:57 <mjj29> hence the conflicts/replaces/provides
21:58 <jcristau> then you have a problem
21:58 <jcristau> because the x server depends on libdrm2
21:58 <jcristau> i'll reply to the mail
21:58 <mjj29> libdrm-snapshot should provide libdrm2
21:58 <jcristau> that won't help
21:58 <mjj29> (it doesn't yet)
21:59 <mjj29> because it's versionned?
21:59 <jcristau> yes
21:59 <mjj29> ah, I was wondering if that would be a problem
21:59 <mjj29> so, either it needs to be coinstallable, or it just needs to be libdrm2?
21:59 <mjj29> would you be happy with the latter solution?
21:59 <jcristau> yes, see my mail
22:00 <jcristau> it needs checking that the removed symbols aren't used by anything
22:00 <mjj29> cool
22:00 <mjj29> we will probably do that then
22:03 <jcristau> is there a plan to package a mesa snapshot for the dri driver too at some point?
22:03 <mjj29> that's for the 3D stuff?
22:03 <jcristau> yes
22:04 <mjj29> upstream don't want 3D to be packaged anywhere yet
22:04 <jcristau> ok
22:04 <mjj29> even in exp.
22:04 <jcristau> fair enough
22:06 <jcristau> feel free to ask on the list or #debian-x if you need anything from us
22:06 <mjj29> sure
22:07 <jcristau> oh, and i forgot: your xsfbs copy could be updated :)
22:07 <mjj29> ah, thanks

So, in summary we want to use libdrm2. Have you looked at the removed
symbols thing?
 
>  2. Maintainer/Uploaders field
>  =============================
> 
> > At the very least it should be maintained in a shared VCS and I should
> > be added as an uploader.
> 
> Agree 100%. As the owner of the ITP, I defer this decision to you. I am
> perfectly happy with it being in the XSF repositories, but I do not have
> commit access there. Do you happen to know the procedure for joining?

I don't, I'm not a member. I'm happy just to have commit access to a
repository on alioth or somewhere else. We could possible coordinate
with RAOF and have different branches in the same repository or
something. If you want to just setup something, I'll go with whatever.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: