Bug#418889: Packaging nouveau
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Chris Lamb <chris@chris-lamb.co.uk> wrote:
> Hello Matt and ROAF,
>
>> So, in summary we want to use libdrm2. Have you looked at the removed
>> symbols thing?
>
> I've looked and as far as I can see the symbols seem okay, but would
> appreciate if someone else could confirm. The packages linked below now
> generate a libdrm2 package accordingly and I've tested the upgrade and
> downgrade to the unstable version with no obvious problems.
>
>> > 2. Maintainer/Uploaders field
>> If you want to just setup something, I'll go with whatever.
>
> Christopher Halse Rogers wrote:
>> It seems reasonable to do this in XSF, but I'm not a member of it either,
>> so just a repository on alioth may be more convenient.
>
> Okay, so it seems that none of us are members! However, for a number of
> reasons I think we should go ahead and join the XSF and host the packaging
> there. (If there is some reason why we can't join then we will obviously
> have to reevaluate this.) Not sure how the Ubuntu PPA stuff works, but I'm
> sure a branch for ROAF's Ubuntu stuff would be very welcome if it would help.
>
> I've uploaded updated packages here:
>
> http://chris-lamb.co.uk/debian/drm-snapshot_2.3.1~git%2b20080602%2bac4da86-1.dsc
> http://chris-lamb.co.uk/debian/xserver-xorg-video-nouveau_0.0.10~git%2b20080602%2be034616-1.dsc
>
> I believe these are Ready For Upload; we can get the packaging hosted
> somewhere whilst they pause in NEW.
Not quite; I've just built them, and you need to update the Source
line in debian/control.modules.in to drm-snapshot from
libdrm-snapshot. Otherwise the drm-modules-source package fails to
build with module-assistant.
It might also be good to not ship the full .git archive in the
.orig.tar.gz; that'd shrink it by ~10Mb, and we only really need the
git revision signature which we could generate at get-orig-source
time. I believe the same can be done with the
xserver-xorg-video-nouveau package, but the space/bandwidth saving is
substantially less. This might be less interesting if the package is
going into XSF git, or if it'll be using the 3.0 git source package
version that I've seen mentioned. Maybe we don't need to care.
Reply to: