On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 15:18:11 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 11.08.2014 um 15:13 schrieb Julien Cristau:
> > Control: tags -1 moreinfo
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 19:36:30 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >
> >> --- mesa-10.2.4.orig/debian/patches/x32-updates.diff
> >> +++ mesa-10.2.4/debian/patches/x32-updates.diff
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> >> +Index: b/configure.ac
> >> +===================================================================
> >> +--- a/configure.ac
> >> ++++ b/configure.ac
> >> +@@ -1757,6 +1757,7 @@ gallium_check_st() {
> >> +
> >> + gallium_require_llvm() {
> >> + if test "x$MESA_LLVM" = x0; then
> >> ++ case "$host" in *gnux32) return;; esac
> >> + case "$host_cpu" in
> >> + i*86|x86_64|amd64) AC_MSG_ERROR([LLVM is required to build $1 on x86 and x86_64]);;
> >> + esac
> >
> > Why shouldn't this apply to x32 the same way it does to x86 and x86_64?
>
> because there is no llvm build on x32.
then maybe x32 shouldn't build the r300 driver until it gets llvm.
> afaics you build the gallium and noveau
> drivers for any architecture except s390 and s390x. why?
> why are s390 and s390x handled this way? maybe add m68k too, so that the package
> builds there too?
>
s390 and s390x are unlikely to need those hardware drivers afaik. I
have no idea about m68k.
Cheers,
Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature