Re: Packaging nouveau
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 21:42 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> OoO Pendant le temps de midi du mardi 13 mai 2008, vers 12:20, Michel
> Dänzer <daenzer@debian.org> disait:
>
> >> > I think it's fine for experimental, as long as the packager is aware
> >> > that it'll need quite some work to keep all the bits together, not just
> >> > the initial packaging.
> >> > I don't expect things to settle down this year, FWIW.
> >>
> >> I have packaged drm-snapshot which creates libdrm2, libdrm2-dev,
> >> libdrm2-dbg and nouveau-kernel-source.
>
> > If you're going through the trouble of reviving DRM snapshot packages,
> > please don't make them nouveau specific. DRM snapshots are useful for
> > other drivers as well.
>
> Hi Michel!
>
> My attempt to package drm-snapshot is nouveau specific only for kernel
> part. In fact, it would be easy to create XXXX-drm-kernel-source for
> each available drm driver. Would it be worth the effort?
I'd just make it a single package for all drivers.
> Moreover, I think that nouveau is just too difficult for me to package
> now. It seems that I wasn't able to identify the correct trees to use
> since my libdrm is not compatible with nouveau dri driver (which is
> really odd). Is it still worth packaging drm snapshot?
>
> I don't feel really motivated maintaining snapshot of DRM and not using
> it. :)
FWIW, it would be useful for
* Drivers like mach64 or xgi which haven't been merged into the
kernel yet.
* Testing TTM/DRI2 functionality with intel drivers, though this
will probably require at least rebuilding some of the other
components, possibly from Git snapshots.
* Generally testing DRM functionality not merged into the kernel
yet (e.g. vblank-rework, support for newer ATI chips).
Also, building the Mesa Git master branch requires a libdrm snapshot.
> >> Maybe, I should rename binary package to state that they should be used
> >> only with nouveau. I mean, if someone installs libdrm2 from
> >> experimental, it will break every X video driver, except nouveau.
>
> > Why is that?
>
> Because ABI incompatibility is not versioned yet. The shipped library is
> still named "libdrm.2.3.0.so" while it is not compatible with
> it. Therefore, this should break any xserver-xorg-video-*. This is pure
> assumption, though.
I don't think it should break anything we have packaged. The only
incompatibility I'm aware of is in the TTM related APIs, and I don't
think anything we have can use the version of those in 2.3.0 out of the
box anyway, and they're still in flux, so the soname probably won't
change at least until that settles down.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://tungstengraphics.com
Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer
Reply to: