Bug#798265: Please apply upstream mouse event duplication patch

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

2015-11-01 8:36 GMT+00:00 RjY :
> Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>So now we try to be more cautious and to avoid cherry-picking fixes
>>(unless they are critical fixes), unless they were going to be released
>>imminently
>
> Upstream first. I quite understand. No problem, I can live with
> continuing to patch my local copy for now.

It's not exactly "upstream first" -- but the effects are almost the
same.  The problem is that even if we backport patches already added
upstream (in their VCS at least), we don't know when they are going to
be released (t has been years from the last one), or if they are
modified or reverted before appearing in the real releases.  All of
these cases happened in the recent past.

So yes, I think that the idea is the same, even if they already
accepted some of the patches upstream :)


>>but we don't have this guarantee anymore.  Upstream did not
>>release a simple 2.0.4 bugfix release (or anything else) in more than 19
>>months, while lots and lots of changes pile up every month without any
>>clear indication of what's considered to be stable and what is not.
>>
>>We already tried to encourage upstream in different ways to try to get
>>regular bugfix releases, but we failed so far.  If you think that you
>>can influence them, please go ahead :)
>
> Heh, they wouldn't know me from Adam. :)
>
> Best I can tell, the SDL2 developers' employer has pulled them off it,
> to work on a commercial game. There's a lesson in this, somewhere. :(
>
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.sdl/71042
> http://forums.libsdl.org/viewtopic.php?p=48819#48819
>
> (I apologise for spreading rumours if this turns out not to be the case.
> It is just a post on a mailing list after all.)

It's a bit strange... they released 2.0, then 2.0.1-2-and-3 in quick
succession, then stopped, and that's more than 1.5 years ago.

Even if the recent lack of activity is because of that, I think that
there might have been more reasons why it has not been done in the
longer period...

So, well, whatever it is, let's hope that they decide to release 2.0.4 soon.


Cheers.
-- 
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo 

Bug#798265: Please apply upstream mouse event duplication patch

[RjY]

Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:

[...]

>So now we try to be more cautious and to avoid cherry-picking fixes
>(unless they are critical fixes), unless they were going to be released
>imminently

Upstream first. I quite understand. No problem, I can live with
continuing to patch my local copy for now.

>but we don't have this guarantee anymore.  Upstream did not
>release a simple 2.0.4 bugfix release (or anything else) in more than 19
>months, while lots and lots of changes pile up every month without any
>clear indication of what's considered to be stable and what is not.
>
>We already tried to encourage upstream in different ways to try to get
>regular bugfix releases, but we failed so far.  If you think that you
>can influence them, please go ahead :)

Heh, they wouldn't know me from Adam. :)

Best I can tell, the SDL2 developers' employer has pulled them off it,
to work on a commercial game. There's a lesson in this, somewhere. :(

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.sdl/71042
http://forums.libsdl.org/viewtopic.php?p=48819#48819

(I apologise for spreading rumours if this turns out not to be the case.
It is just a post on a mailing list after all.)

-- 
http://rjy.org.uk/

Bug#798265: Please apply upstream mouse event duplication patch

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

2015-09-07 14:51 RjY:

Source: libsdl2
Version: 2.0.2+dfsg1-7
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch fixed-upstream

Please apply this patch, cherry-picked from unreleased 2.0.4 upstream:

https://hg.libsdl.org/SDL/rev/957a6ed39ad0

as it fixes some very annoying mouse behaviour in SDL2.


I was hoping (and waiting for many months, or year+ now) that 2.0.4 was
released at some point, so we can package a "known milestone", and so we
don't have to cherry pick fixes like this that people request us from
time to time.

Because of this cherry-picking, in the past the Debian packages caused
subtle ABI changes or behaviours that people depended upon and diverged
from the same versions in the rest of the distributions, or wrong
patches that entered in Debian stable releases and later were reverted
without us noticing for some time and without being able to drop them in
the stable releases...

So now we try to be more cautious and to avoid cherry-picking fixes
(unless they are critical fixes), unless they were going to be released
imminently, but we don't have this guarantee anymore.  Upstream did not
release a simple 2.0.4 bugfix release (or anything else) in more than 19
months, while lots and lots of changes pile up every month without any
clear indication of what's considered to be stable and what is not.

We already tried to encourage upstream in different ways to try to get
regular bugfix releases, but we failed so far.  If you think that you
can influence them, please go ahead :)


Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo 

Bug#798265: Please apply upstream mouse event duplication patch

[RjY]

Source: libsdl2
Version: 2.0.2+dfsg1-7
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch fixed-upstream

Please apply this patch, cherry-picked from unreleased 2.0.4 upstream:

https://hg.libsdl.org/SDL/rev/957a6ed39ad0

as it fixes some very annoying mouse behaviour in SDL2.

-8<---

diff -r fd60d77139fc -r 957a6ed39ad0 src/video/x11/SDL_x11xinput2.c
--- a/src/video/x11/SDL_x11xinput2.cMon Jun 08 01:52:43 2015 -0400
+++ b/src/video/x11/SDL_x11xinput2.cMon Jun 08 02:58:46 2015 -0400
@@ -136,15 +136,25 @@
 case XI_RawMotion: {
 const XIRawEvent *rawev = (const XIRawEvent*)cookie->data;
 SDL_Mouse *mouse = SDL_GetMouse();
-double relative_cords[2];
+double relative_coords[2];
+static Time prev_time = 0;
+static double prev_rel_coords[2];
 
 if (!mouse->relative_mode || mouse->relative_mode_warp) {
 return 0;
 }
 
 parse_valuators(rawev->raw_values,rawev->valuators.mask,
-rawev->valuators.mask_len,relative_cords,2);
-
SDL_SendMouseMotion(mouse->focus,mouse->mouseID,1,(int)relative_cords[0],(int)relative_cords[1]);
+rawev->valuators.mask_len,relative_coords,2);
+
+if ((rawev->time == prev_time) && (relative_coords[0] == 
prev_rel_coords[0]) && (relative_coords[1] == prev_rel_coords[1])) {
+return 0;  /* duplicate event, drop it. */
+}
+
+
SDL_SendMouseMotion(mouse->focus,mouse->mouseID,1,(int)relative_coords[0],(int)relative_coords[1]);
+prev_rel_coords[0] = relative_coords[0];
+prev_rel_coords[1] = relative_coords[1];
+prev_time = rawev->time;
 return 1;
 }
 break;

->8---

-- 
http://rjy.org.uk/