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

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: 

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)
CAMLprim void ml_glMultTransposeMatrixd (value raw)
  ml_raise_gl ("Function: glMultTransposeMatrixd not available");

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


Sven Luther

Reply to: