Bug#556435: marked as done (possible missed symlink in libgl1-mesa-glx.install)
Your message dated Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:26:40 +0100
with message-id <4B00F0A0.4030001@ens-lyon.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#556435: possible missed symlink in libgl1-mesa-glx.install
has caused the Debian Bug report #556435,
regarding possible missed symlink in libgl1-mesa-glx.install
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
556435: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=556435
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
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:
libGL.so
libGL.so.1
libGL.so.1.2
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
report.
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.
HTH,
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
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dave Witbrodt wrote:
> 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.)
>
You probably want to look at unstable packages instead of Lenny
packages, they are likely easier to adapt to Mesa development branches.
> 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:
>
> libGL.so
> libGL.so.1
> libGL.so.1.2
>
> The 'libgl1-mesa-glx.install' contents fail to match the 'libGL.so'
> symlink. Is this intentional?
>
Yes. *.so files are in -dev packages, not in regular libray packages.
The latter only contains what's needed for runtime execution (*.so.N
files are enough). The former adds *.so because it's needed for building
against the library.
I am closing this bug then.
> 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).
>
It comes from libgl1-mesa-dev:
$ dlocate /usr/lib/libGL.so
libgl1-mesa-dev: /usr/lib/libGL.so
> 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
> report.
>
Good.
> 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.
>
If you find some problems in the Debian packaging, you can ask debian-x@
But we don't have enough manpower to handle bug reports, so it's not
clear at all that somebody will have time to answer your questions, but
we never know...
Brice
--- End Message ---
Reply to: