Re: Branden, please apply attached patch (Was Re: Driver SDK.)
Ok, i have seen this mail now, but it didn't arrive before i send the
other one.
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 04:23:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 05:11:26PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ok, here attached is what i think a final version of the driver sdk.
>
> If it doesn't apply cleanly, it's your ass. :-P
If it doesn't apply cleanly, i send a new one.
> > The only remaining thing is to attach some documentation in the
> > README.Debian file, but i will first need to actually use the package
> > to build some drivers before i write it.
>
> That's acceptable.
:))
> > I will probably add some make-kpkg like stuff to the tarball in future,
> > so users can simply do a dpkg-buildpackage in the unpacked directory,
> > and build an alternative driver package, but this can be done later on.
>
> I agree.
Ok.
> > Anyway Branden, please apply this patch to your main tree, it is fully
> > orthogonal to anything else. Maybe you would like to have a
> > DONT_BUILD_SDK or something such option added though, like you have a
> > DONT_BUILD_SERVER one, if so, ask me about it, and i will implement it.
>
> No, I don't have a DONT_BUILD_SERVER option. As I've explained on this
> list before, the variables are called NOT_BUILDING_X_SERVER and
> NOT_BUILDING_XF86_SERVER, and they are *descriptive*, not
> *prescriptive*.
Come on, i was writing this mail without the sources before my eyes, but
i understand you perfectly understood what i meant, so there is no need
for bickering about it.
> Please, please, pay more attention to this mailing list.
Sure sure, altough of all the debian mails, it is the most difficult one
to follow. Even debian-devel is easier to read.
So, do you want to add a NOT_BUILDING_XF86_DDK around the changes ?
Considering the tarball is quite big, and it may take lot of time on
slow arches, it may be a good idea.
> > The patch come in two parts, the actual patch sdk.diff, which add the
> > needed stuff to debian/rules and debian/control, and the MANIFEST.diff,
> > which is the diff for the added SDK files on x86.
>
> The MANIFEST changes will have to applied to all the MANIFEST files, of
> course.
I am not sure if we need to apply the same MANIFEST file or not, some of
the files my not build on all arches maybe, not sure though.
> > diff -urN debian.orig/control debian/control
> > --- debian.orig/control 2003-10-31 13:33:23.000000000 +0100
> > +++ debian/control 2003-10-31 13:25:43.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -1195,3 +1195,13 @@
> > This package smooths upgrades from Debian 3.0 by depending on
> > xlibs-static-pic. This pseudopackage is only depended upon by packages that
> > haven't yet corrected their dependencies to reflect the new package name.
> > +
> > +Package: xfree86-driver-sdk
> > +Architecture: any
> > +Depends: xlibs-dev
> > +Description: XFree86 driver development kit.
> > + The XFree86 driver SDK (DDK would have been a better name) contain everything
> > + that is needed to rebuild the video drivers. It can be used either to apply
> > + some patch to the driver and rebuild them or to build the drivers from the
> > + xfree86 CVS HEAD or from other third party sources.
> > +
>
> I'm going to be rewriting this a bit.
Feel free to do it, i am not a good english writer, and it surely shows
in my description.
> FYI, SDK stands for "Software Development Kit", but I don't see any
> reason to mention it at all in the package description if it's
> misleading -- and it looks like it might be.
Upstream calls it SDK though, so it would be nice to have it in the
descritption so it shows up in apt-cache search or something.
> Maybe the package should simply be called "xfree86-ddk"? Why propagate
> a misnaming further?
Tempting, i say let's go for that.
> > diff -urN debian.orig/rules debian/rules
> > --- debian.orig/rules 2003-10-31 13:33:22.000000000 +0100
> > +++ debian/rules 2003-10-31 13:26:00.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -244,7 +244,7 @@
> > ifndef test_rules
> > umask 022
> > dh_clean -k
> > - $(MAKE) -C $(SOURCE_TREE) SHELL="/bin/sh -e" DESTDIR=$(DEBTREEDIR) install install.man install.sdk
> > + $(MAKE) -C $(SOURCE_TREE) SHELL="/bin/sh -e" DESTDIR=$(DEBTREEDIR) install install.man
> > # install Debian's font tools
> > install -m 755 -d $(DEBTREEDIR)/usr/bin $(DEBTREEDIR)/usr/sbin
> > install -m 755 -d $(DEBTREEDIR)/usr/share/man/man1 $(DEBTREEDIR)/usr/share/man/man5 $(DEBTREEDIR)/usr/share/man/man8
> > @@ -375,9 +375,6 @@
> > dh_testdir
> > dh_testroot
> > dh_install --sourcedir=debian/tmp
> > - # installing the SDK tarball
> > - mkdir -p debian/xfree86-driver-sdk/usr/src
> > - tar -C $(DEBTREEDIR)/usr/X11R6/lib -c -j Server -f debian/xfree86-driver-sdk/usr/src/xfree86-sdk.tar.bz2
> > # special handling; don't do this if the manpage doesn't exist, which
> > # will be the case if this architecture doesn't build the XFree86 X
> > # server
> > @@ -410,8 +407,7 @@
> > -Nxlibmesa-glu-dbg \
> > -Nxlibosmesa4-dbg \
> > -Nxlibs-dbg \
> > - -Nxserver-xfree86-dbg \
> > - -Nxfree86-driver-sdk
> > + -Nxserver-xfree86-dbg
> > find debian/xserver-xfree86/usr/X11R6/lib/modules -name "*.o" | \
> > xargs --no-run-if-empty \
> > strip --strip-debug --remove-section=.note --remove-section=.comment
> > @@ -426,7 +422,7 @@
> > chown :utmp debian/xterm/usr/X11R6/bin/xterm
> > chmod g+s debian/xterm/usr/X11R6/bin/xterm
> > dh_installdeb
> > - dh_shlibdeps -l$(DEBTREEDIR)/usr/lib -l$(DEBTREEDIR)/usr/X11R6/lib -Nxlibs -Nxfree86-driver-sdk --exclude=usr/X11R6/lib/modules
> > + dh_shlibdeps -l$(DEBTREEDIR)/usr/lib -l$(DEBTREEDIR)/usr/X11R6/lib -Nxlibs --exclude=usr/X11R6/lib/modules
> > # xlibs needs to be given a special shlibs file so that dpkg-shlibdeps
> > # doesn't try to make it depend on itself
> > DH_OPTIONS= dh_shlibdeps -l$(DEBTREEDIR)/usr/X11R6/lib -pxlibs --exclude=libxrx.so -- -Ldebian/xlibs.shlibs.dummy
>
> Sigh. Sven, I would have hoped that after all these years you'd have
> learned how to generate diffs that go the right direction. I'll fix it.
Huh, my mistake here, sorry.
BTW, i am not sure about the -Nxfree86-driver-sdk in both these cases.
They were needed before when i had not done a tarball, but i guess we
can remove it now.
> > diff -urN debian.orig/xfree86-driver-sdk.README.Debian debian/xfree86-driver-sdk.README.Debian
> > --- debian.orig/xfree86-driver-sdk.README.Debian 1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
> > +++ debian/xfree86-driver-sdk.README.Debian 2003-10-31 13:09:37.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> > +Debian README for xfree86-driver-sdk package
> > +
> > +Sven Luther, 09 Aug 2003
>
> I'm omitting this until there is actually something to put in it.
Ok.
> Anyway, thanks for the patch. I still regard this as a post-4.3.0-1
> item, which means it will only be applied before 4.3.0-1 if time
> permits.
Ok, altough as said, it doesn't cost much, and since we add a new
package, it will have to go trough the NEW queue.
Anyway, your package your decision, now you have the full patch, and i
will start working on getting the necessary stuff to actually use the
DDK. My plan is to add the necessary debian directory to the tarball, so
that you only need to unpack it and run dpkg-buildpackage on it to
generate the proper driver packages, which should install and divert the
xfree86 provided packages, a bit like Michel's DRI trunk package do.
Then i will need to hack on the CVS head drivers to make sure they build
with it, and i guess some of the proprietary driver writter will also be
able to generate packages from it, i think in particular that ATI should
be able to generate debian packages directly from it. Not NVidia though.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: