Bug#218614: Branden, please apply attached patch (Was Re: Driver SDK.)
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:22:28PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 07:40, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 08:59:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:35:53AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 06:01:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > I like to test my packages before uploading them, unlike some people.
> >
> > I do to. The fact of uploading as sources or not has hardly anything to
> > do with it. In fact, i was again bitten by my 4.3.0 install, i built
> > lablgl on my system, and now it pulled some OpenGL symbols only present
> > in the 4.3.0 mesa libs. I think the mesa libs should benefit from having
> > an API virtual depend or something such.
>
> I rather suspect lablgl doesn't deal with the OpenGL ABI correctly. But
Well, the error, as reported in bug report #218823 shows the following problem :
$ lablgtk2
Cannot load required shared library:
/usr/lib/ocaml/3.07/stublibs/dlllablgl.so: undefined symbol:
glMultTransposeMatrixd.
I suppose that glMultTransposeMatrixd is a new symbol of GL 1.3 it seems
(formely known as glMultTransposeMatrixdARB i hear). Anyway, i have code
of the kind :
#ifdef GL_VERSION_1_3
ML_1 (glMultTransposeMatrixd, Double_raw)
#else
CAMLprim void ml_glMultTransposeMatrixd (value raw)
{
ml_raise_gl ("Function: glMultTransposeMatrixd not available");
}
#endif
Where naturally GL_VERSION_1_3 and GL_VERSION_1_4 and so on come from
the OpenGL headers, i think.
Naturally, these are present on my system (and when using the non
XFree86 mesa packages too, but then you loose acceleration, no ?) and
thus it is broken.
> you should build packages you upload with something like pbuilder
> anyway. :)
Yes, i should. it would be easier for me if i could upload as source
only, once i have tested that the package builds fine for me. Or i could
upload binaries for some obscure arch nobody really uses :))
> > > Wait, wait, wait. You're saying "make install.sdk should be the same on
> > > all arches" and yet the unpacked tarball contains shared objects?
> > >
> > > If the tarball ships a compiled object, when did that object get
> > > compiled?
> > >
> > > I smell conflicting premises.
> >
> > Well, i was speaking of file list and not of file content. It even ships
> > a copy of the X server anyway.
>
> What for? :) Why does it ship any compiled objects? Do we really need
> them?
It is the upstream SDK, i seriously doubt we need all of those, but
there can be many uses for said SDK which don't include just building
libraries.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: