Re: [blfs-dev] Mesalib dependencies
Randy McMurchy wrote: > Hi all, > > Listed as recommended dependencies for Mesalib is as such (current SVN book): > > "Recommended > > elfutils-0.157 (required for radeon 3d drivers), libvdpau-0.7 (to build VDPAU > drivers), LLVM-3.3 (required for radeon 3d drivers and also for llvmpipe > which is intended to be the fastest of the three sw rasterizers, see > http://www.mesa3d.org/faq.html#part3 )" > > Last year at about this time I wrote a message about the same thing, and > the parenthetical information (nor the Note that is in the instructions > now) was not included at that time. I wrote that it was confusing that > packages are recommended, yet only applicable to certain hardware. I > asked that there be some clarification. > > The parenthetical information and the Note was added. To me, it is still > confusing. What I read from the quoted dependencies above is that the > packages are recommended (there must be some features that are important) > but are required if you have certain hardware. Though the libvdpau > insertion is even more confusing (why is it recommended to build a > particular driver among all the others?) > > So are the packages recommended because they can add important features, > or they recommended because they support certain hardware? I think the > ambiguity of this needs to be addressed. If it is determined that the > recommended packages are there strictly to support certain hardware, > then that needs to be identified. There is nothing wrong with a dependency > section that explicitly says "Required if you have xyz hardware". > > However, it needs to be in a section labeled "required for xyz hardware". > That way there is no ambiguity. It is either required for your hardware > or it isn't. Recommended means that the editor that wrote the page thinks > that the package provides enhancements that should be included, but not > necessarily is mandatory. The current Mesalib instructions fail in the > BLFS method of providing good information. > > I can fix this if the team thinks it is worth looking at. I just think > it can be clarified much better. Reply if you agree or disagree. I > think it is worthy of discussion. I'd say go ahead and change it. Igor made the most recent change, but since you have the changes in mind, it would be easiest for you to get it the way you want. We can always make additional changes if needed. Igor, are you OK with that? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Mesalib dependencies
On 01/08/2014 02:54 AM, Randy McMurchy wrote: > Hi all, > > Listed as recommended dependencies for Mesalib is as such (current SVN book): > > "Recommended > > elfutils-0.157 (required for radeon 3d drivers), libvdpau-0.7 (to build VDPAU > drivers), LLVM-3.3 (required for radeon 3d drivers and also for llvmpipe > which is intended to be the fastest of the three sw rasterizers, see > http://www.mesa3d.org/faq.html#part3 )" > > Last year at about this time I wrote a message about the same thing, and > the parenthetical information (nor the Note that is in the instructions > now) was not included at that time. I wrote that it was confusing that > packages are recommended, yet only applicable to certain hardware. I > asked that there be some clarification. > > The parenthetical information and the Note was added. To me, it is still > confusing. What I read from the quoted dependencies above is that the > packages are recommended (there must be some features that are important) > but are required if you have certain hardware. Though the libvdpau > insertion is even more confusing (why is it recommended to build a > particular driver among all the others?) > > So are the packages recommended because they can add important features, > or they recommended because they support certain hardware? I think the > ambiguity of this needs to be addressed. If it is determined that the > recommended packages are there strictly to support certain hardware, > then that needs to be identified. There is nothing wrong with a dependency > section that explicitly says "Required if you have xyz hardware". > > However, it needs to be in a section labeled "required for xyz hardware". > That way there is no ambiguity. It is either required for your hardware > or it isn't. Recommended means that the editor that wrote the page thinks > that the package provides enhancements that should be included, but not > necessarily is mandatory. The current Mesalib instructions fail in the > BLFS method of providing good information. > > I can fix this if the team thinks it is worth looking at. I just think > it can be clarified much better. Reply if you agree or disagree. I > think it is worthy of discussion. > I believe it has been made like that to satisfy everyone's needs. radeonsi is enabled by default, and it requires both llvm and elfutils, while r600, which is also enabled by default, only requires elfutils. libvdpau is required to build hardware specific vdpau drivers (r600, radeonsi, nouveau) to enable hardware acelerated video decoding in players that support vdpau (not really a requirement). >From my point of view, if something requires a switch to disable, the dependency is recommended and thus not disabled by default unless specified by user. -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Mesalib dependencies
On 2014-01-08 03:11, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Randy McMurchy wrote: >> >> I can fix this if the team thinks it is worth looking at. I just think >> it can be clarified much better. Reply if you agree or disagree. I >> think it is worthy of discussion. > > I'd say go ahead and change it. Igor made the most recent change, but > since you have the changes in mind, it would be easiest for you to get > it the way you want. We can always make additional changes if needed. > > Igor, are you OK with that? Of course, although it was Ken who actually changed it after a recent discussion. As Armin said, current instructions satisfy all three most commonly used graphic cards nowadays. I'd like to see more explanation on VDPAU though. -- Igor Živković http://www.slashtime.net/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Mesalib dependencies
Le 08/01/2014 10:30, Igor Živković a écrit : > On 2014-01-08 03:11, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Randy McMurchy wrote: >>> I can fix this if the team thinks it is worth looking at. I just think >>> it can be clarified much better. Reply if you agree or disagree. I >>> think it is worthy of discussion. >> I'd say go ahead and change it. Igor made the most recent change, but >> since you have the changes in mind, it would be easiest for you to get >> it the way you want. We can always make additional changes if needed. >> >> Igor, are you OK with that? > Of course, although it was Ken who actually changed it after a recent > discussion. As Armin said, current instructions satisfy all three most > commonly used graphic cards nowadays. I'd like to see more explanation > on VDPAU though. > I do not know exactly what Randy has in mind. Any graphic card is able to manage a display with just the vesa driver and a legacy sofware rasterizer for openGL. So strictly speaking, none of the deps are required, even if the corresponding hardware is installed. That's why I am reluctant to see those deps in a "required" section. Concerning VDPAU, I agree that it is not detailed enough. Maybe, a paragraph on the page "Xorg 7.7 Testing and Configuration" could be added, with a link from the Mesalib page. I am sorry I do not know enough to write that paragraph, though. Pierre -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Mesalib dependencies
Le 08/01/2014 14:14, Pierre Labastie a écrit : > Le 08/01/2014 10:30, Igor Živković a écrit : >> On 2014-01-08 03:11, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> Randy McMurchy wrote: I can fix this if the team thinks it is worth looking at. I just think it can be clarified much better. Reply if you agree or disagree. I think it is worthy of discussion. >>> I'd say go ahead and change it. Igor made the most recent change, but >>> since you have the changes in mind, it would be easiest for you to get >>> it the way you want. We can always make additional changes if needed. >>> >>> Igor, are you OK with that? >> Of course, although it was Ken who actually changed it after a recent >> discussion. As Armin said, current instructions satisfy all three most >> commonly used graphic cards nowadays. I'd like to see more explanation >> on VDPAU though. >> > I do not know exactly what Randy has in mind. Any graphic card is able > to manage a display with just the vesa driver and a legacy sofware > rasterizer for openGL. So strictly speaking, none of the deps are > required, even if the corresponding hardware is installed. That's why I > am reluctant to see those deps in a "required" section. > > Concerning VDPAU, I agree that it is not detailed enough. Maybe, a > paragraph on the page "Xorg 7.7 Testing and Configuration" could be > added, with a link from the Mesalib page. I am sorry I do not know > enough to write that paragraph, though. > > Pierre > BTW, if somebody edits this page, there are a lot of tags that should be changed to in the "Command explanation" section. Pierre -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Mesalib dependencies
Em 08-01-2014 10:14, Pierre Labastie escreveu: > Le 08/01/2014 10:30, Igor Živković a écrit : >> On 2014-01-08 03:11, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> Randy McMurchy wrote: I can fix this if the team thinks it is worth looking at. I just think it can be clarified much better. Reply if you agree or disagree. I think it is worthy of discussion. >>> I'd say go ahead and change it. Igor made the most recent change, but >>> since you have the changes in mind, it would be easiest for you to get >>> it the way you want. We can always make additional changes if needed. >>> >>> Igor, are you OK with that? >> Of course, although it was Ken who actually changed it after a recent >> discussion. As Armin said, current instructions satisfy all three most >> commonly used graphic cards nowadays. I'd like to see more explanation >> on VDPAU though. >> > I do not know exactly what Randy has in mind. Any graphic card is able > to manage a display with just the vesa driver and a legacy sofware > rasterizer for openGL. So strictly speaking, none of the deps are > required, even if the corresponding hardware is installed. That's why I > am reluctant to see those deps in a "required" section. > > Concerning VDPAU, I agree that it is not detailed enough. Maybe, a > paragraph on the page "Xorg 7.7 Testing and Configuration" could be > added, with a link from the Mesalib page. I am sorry I do not know > enough to write that paragraph, though. I think it is worth doing clarifications. Another clarification would be in GLU, which does not have a introduction, and is included in the page, would deserve clarifications, too, I think. Also, I have a doubt if it could have its own page. Reason is my recent experience with audacious, that I updated, where some dependencies are for the main package and others only for the plugins (and I still am thinking if would also deserve to be split in two pages, with the plugins being runtime required dependency for the main page). Included this in the discussion, because depending on the opinions, perhaps I should open a thread asking you all about this, sorry for the OT. -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Mesalib dependencies
On 2014-01-08 14:40, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > > Another clarification would be in GLU, which does not have a > introduction, and is included in the page, would deserve > clarifications, > too, I think. > > Also, I have a doubt if it could have its own page. Reason is my recent > experience with audacious, that I updated, where some dependencies are > for the main package and others only for the plugins (and I still am > thinking if would also deserve to be split in two pages, with the > plugins being runtime required dependency for the main page). Included > this in the discussion, because depending on the opinions, perhaps I > should open a thread asking you all about this, sorry for the OT. I don't think GLU is used by anything in the X Window System Environment chapter. Same thing for makedepend. Those two packages should probably be moved. -- Igor Živković http://www.slashtime.net/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Mesalib dependencies
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 10:30:42AM +0100, Igor Živković wrote: > On 2014-01-08 03:11, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > > > I'd say go ahead and change it. Igor made the most recent change, but > > since you have the changes in mind, it would be easiest for you to get > > it the way you want. We can always make additional changes if needed. > > > > Igor, are you OK with that? > > Of course, although it was Ken who actually changed it after a recent > discussion. As Armin said, current instructions satisfy all three most > commonly used graphic cards nowadays. I'd like to see more explanation > on VDPAU though. > I think that more explanation would often be useful. Let's see what Randy comes up with. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Mesalib dependencies
On 01/08/2014 02:56 PM, Igor Živković wrote: > On 2014-01-08 14:40, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >> >> Another clarification would be in GLU, which does not have a >> introduction, and is included in the page, would deserve >> clarifications, >> too, I think. >> >> Also, I have a doubt if it could have its own page. Reason is my recent >> experience with audacious, that I updated, where some dependencies are >> for the main package and others only for the plugins (and I still am >> thinking if would also deserve to be split in two pages, with the >> plugins being runtime required dependency for the main page). Included >> this in the discussion, because depending on the opinions, perhaps I >> should open a thread asking you all about this, sorry for the OT. > > I don't think GLU is used by anything in the X Window System Environment > chapter. Same thing for makedepend. Those two packages should probably > be moved. > The reason of why I left the package on the Mesa page is that before Mesa 9.0, GLU was part of Mesa and thus all packages that depended on GLU itself depended on Mesa directly or indirectly. You'd have to update the dependencies to depend on GLU afterwards, which I didn't had the time for. GLU itself, like GLUT depends on Mesa only, no aditional deps required. If you decide to split it, make sure you update the dependencies for some packages, which are yet unknown. From archlinux reverse dependencies, following packages require GLU xscreensaver libtiff libwebp freeglut (although it doesn't link to it. maybe it just requires its headers) libreoffice gnash jasper sdl xine-lib -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Mesalib dependencies
Em 08-01-2014 13:09, Armin K. escreveu: > On 01/08/2014 02:56 PM, Igor Živković wrote: >> On 2014-01-08 14:40, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >>> >>> Another clarification would be in GLU, which does not have a >>> introduction, and is included in the page, would deserve >>> clarifications, >>> too, I think. >>> >>> Also, I have a doubt if it could have its own page. Reason is my recent >>> experience with audacious, that I updated, where some dependencies are >>> for the main package and others only for the plugins (and I still am >>> thinking if would also deserve to be split in two pages, with the >>> plugins being runtime required dependency for the main page). Included >>> this in the discussion, because depending on the opinions, perhaps I >>> should open a thread asking you all about this, sorry for the OT. >> >> I don't think GLU is used by anything in the X Window System Environment >> chapter. Same thing for makedepend. Those two packages should probably >> be moved. >> Have been studying makedepend all this morning. Before, I had just installed it, without paying much attention, perhaps only to fix the xorg chain, can't remember now. So, What I am writing in the following about it might be wrong. First, it seems that only one package depends on it, but only optionally: JS-17.0.0. makedepend only appear in the log at configure: checking for makedepend... /usr/bin/makedepend After install, nothing seems to be linked to it, which is not a surprise, given its Introduction in BLFS. I don't know how tocheck this in the static library, but would not expect any surprise. As I had discussed also mozjs-24.2.0 in a ticket, it does not appear in the logs for this version anywhere. Run "make check" and the builds for 17 with and without makedepend in the system, and noticed no difference but in the configure part. Searched other distributions, and have some difficult finding it. IIRC, only found in one page that was stating something like "this page is too old..." I may be wrong, but makedepend is a strong candidate for archive. If no objections or if I have not committed mistakes in this analysis, this is simple enough for me to do. Now, about GLU. No strong feelings about it, but would prefer it to be moved out of MESA. After I read what Armin wrote below, I think it is a difficult job, I would prefer not being the one doing it. As I asked Randy in the ticket, at least some clarification should be done why it is in the book (I am not saying it should be removed or archived). I trust very much in Igor's competence, in general, and in particular, for this job (sorry for the burden, Igor). :-) > > The reason of why I left the package on the MESA page is that before > MESA 9.0, GLU was part of MESA and thus all packages that depended on > GLU itself depended on MESA directly or indirectly. You'd have to update > the dependencies to depend on GLU afterwards, which I didn't had the > time for. GLU itself, like GLUT depends on MESA only, no aditional deps > required. > > If you decide to split it, make sure you update the dependencies for > some packages, which are yet unknown. > > From archlinux reverse dependencies, following packages require GLU > > xscreensaver > libtiff > libwebp > freeglut (although it doesn't link to it. maybe it just requires its > headers) > libreoffice > gnash > jasper > sdl > xine-lib > Thanks for the very important info, Armin. I considered just xscreensaver, for the moment. In our book, it depends on Xorg Applications and it is this one that depends on MESA. After Igor's comment, Xorg Applications depends on MESA, but not GLU. So, it should be replaced there. But xscreensaver, in anyway, should perhaps be fixed already, because it depends on the X-Windows-System at runtime. I was thinking that the move could be done in two stages. First one, start pointing explicitly to GLU, after all done, stage tow, just move GLU. Still, difficult for myself doing it. -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Mesalib dependencies
Em 10-01-2014 10:50, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu: > Searched other distributions, and have [should be had] some difficult finding > it. IIRC, > only found in one page that was stating something like "this page is too > old..." Found it: http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?word=makedepend "You reached this site over an old URL. Depending on the exact parameters your search might work or not." ... FilePackages /etc/root/vmc/Makedependlibroot-montecarlo-vmc-dev [not powerpc, s390, s390x] /usr/bin/makedepend xutils-dev /usr/bin/ml-makedepend smlnj [powerpc, i386, amd64] /usr/lib/smlnj/bin/ml-makedependsmlnj [powerpc, i386, amd64] ... -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
