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

lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86



Dear debian-devel,
dear maintainers of packages that contain lrmi.{c,h},

today Lucas has reported #518725 - atitvout FTBFS because of missing
*_MASK defines.
Seeing that bug and remembering fun with lrmi myself, I thought I can
have a look how many other packages will FTBFS.

The following packages contain lrmi.{c,h}, and the ones with the *
FTBFS:
read-edid*
atitvout*
s3switch*
libx86
v86d
xresprobe*
zhcon*
lphdisk*
svgalib*
usplash

makes 7 of 10 - nice quota. btw v86d and usplash do not build the
shipped lrmi.c but link against libx86 which has a patched one.

The patch is trivial an can be found in the current libx86 package.
But actually we should stop duplicating code (esp. OLD code - some
packages have lrmi.c from lrmi 0.6, 0.10 is latest) and using libx86
only.
If only libx86 would have latest lrmi code...

David, is there any chance that libx86 will be updated someday? Esp
because upstream of v86d has an updated 0.10 in his git at
http://repo.or.cz/w/v86d.git and Debian's v86d is not using it in
favour of not build duplicate code.

All other (incl David), is there any interest in forking libx86 and
using it globally instead of fixing that ftbfs 7 times?

Attached is a dd-list of the failing packages, just for the case :)

Regards
Evgeni


-- 
Bruce Schneier Fact Number 127:
Bruce Schneier's DNA is a secure platform and cannot be cloned.
Philippe Coval <rzr@users.sf.net>
   atitvout

Debian X Strike Force <debian-x@lists.debian.org>
   xresprobe

Yu Guanghui <ygh@debian.org>
   zhcon

Guido Guenther <agx@debian.org>
   s3switch

Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>
   svgalib

Roberto Lumbreras <rover@debian.org>
   lphdisk

David Nusinow <dnusinow@debian.org>
   xresprobe (U)

Sam Hocevar (Debian packages) <sam+deb@zoy.org>
   svgalib (U)

Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
   read-edid

Otavio Salvador <otavio@debian.org>
   xresprobe (U)

Attachment: pgpcq6xOEpotn.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: