Control: tags -1 + confirmed upstream
Control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/Libvisual/libvisual/issues/193

Hello,

I have completed compatibility testing of libvisual and lv-tool against the
SDL compatibility stack in Debian unstable.

libvisual 0.4.2-6 was built with libsdl1.2-dev 1.2.76-1, whose source package
is sdl12-compat. The resulting lv-tool-0.4 binary still links to
libSDL-1.2.so.0. At runtime, sdl12-compat reports that it is using SDL2
2.32.72.

I ran lv-tool-0.4 0.4.2-6 for five frames with the debug input and lv_scope
actor in the following environments:

* X11 under Xvfb, with SDL_VIDEODRIVER=x11;
* the SDL dummy video driver;
* native Wayland under a headless Weston 16.0.0 compositor, with
  SDL_VIDEODRIVER=wayland;
* Xwayland 24.1.13 under the same compositor, with SDL_VIDEODRIVER=x11.

All four runs exited successfully. I also repeated the native Wayland test
with WAYLAND_DEBUG=client and confirmed that the application connected to and used the Wayland compositor. For Xwayland, xdpyinfo connected successfully and
identified the X server as Xwayland 24.1.13.

All runs emitted two libvisual critical diagnostics from
visual_video_set_depth() with a null video argument. The native Wayland run
also emitted Mesa/EGL warnings in the headless environment. I therefore regard these results as successful compatibility smoke tests, not complete functional
validation.

The source still makes extensive use of SDL 1.2-only APIs, including
SDL_SetVideoMode(), SDL_WM_*(), SDL_VIDEORESIZE and SDL_GL_SwapBuffers(), in
lv-tool and the SDL examples. The current upstream source has the same
dependency, so a direct SDL2 port is non-trivial and should preferably be
coordinated upstream. I have linked this bug to the existing upstream issue.

For clarity, the pkg.libvisual.nosdl profile added for #1077534 only omits
lv-tool and the examples from bootstrap builds. It does not port them to SDL2
and therefore does not resolve this bug.

I am leaving this bug open to track the remaining SDL 1.2 API use.

Best regards,
Federico Molara

Reply via email to