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

Bug#556435: possible missed symlink in libgl1-mesa-glx.install

Package: libgl1-mesa-glx
Version: 7.0.3-7
Severity: wishlist

I have been investigating the way that Debian X Strike Force packages
Mesa because I needed to build a newer version of Mesa from upstream
sources in order to play with 2D/3D acceleration on a Radeon RV770 GPU.
(This requires that Mesa be rebuilt with "r600" DRI support.)

My understanding of Debian packaging protocols and workflows is limited,
maybe nonexistant.  However, I was eventually able to figure out how
'debian/rules' actually builds all of the sources, then "installs" them
to 'debian/tmp', and then the *.install files are used to piece together
the 19 separate DEB files produced by this Debianized source package.

One of those files is 'debian/libgl1-mesa-glx.install', which contains
this line:

    usr/lib/glx/libGL.so.* usr/lib

However, there are actually 3 'libGL.so*' files/symlinks in
'debian/tmp/usr/lib/glx' after the sources are built:


The 'libgl1-mesa-glx.install' contents fail to match the 'libGL.so'
symlink.  Is this intentional?

All three files/symlinks could be matched by changing
'libgl1-mesa-glx.install' to this:

    usr/lib/glx/libGL.so* usr/lib

On my Sid machine, I actually have a symlink at '/usr/lib/libGL.so', and
I'm not quite sure where it came from.  (Running 'dpkg -S' on it reveals
that it belongs to no package; I may have produced it accidentally while
trying to rebuild the upstream sources into DEB files.)  On the Lenny
machine, there is no such symlink (as expected).

I discovered this while looking at Mesa-7.6 sources on Sid, and I have a
Lenny server box where I checked out the sources for this version.  I am
filing this wishlist bug from the Lenny machine because I currently have
a development version of Mesa installed on the Sid machine, and didn't
want an unsupported version of this package to be listed in my bug

Also, is "debian-x@lists.debian.org" open to non-bug-related traffic, or
is it for bugs and maintainer issues only?  I have a couple of questions
besides this one (which cannot even be pretended to pertain to bugs)
about building and updating Mesa sources locally.

Dave W.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0.3
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.31-0git.090921.webserver.uvesafb (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages libgl1-mesa-glx depends on:
ii  libc6                         2.7-18     GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  libdrm2                       2.3.1-2    Userspace interface to kernel DRM 
ii  libx11-6                      2:1.1.5-2  X11 client-side library
ii  libxdamage1                   1:1.1.1-4  X11 damaged region extension libra
ii  libxext6                      2:1.0.4-1  X11 miscellaneous extension librar
ii  libxfixes3                    1:4.0.3-2  X11 miscellaneous 'fixes' extensio
ii  libxxf86vm1                   1:1.0.2-1  X11 XFree86 video mode extension l

libgl1-mesa-glx recommends no packages.

libgl1-mesa-glx suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

Reply to: