FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-08-2009, 02:49 PM
Evgeni Golov
 
Default lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

Dear debian-devel,
dear maintainers of packages that contain lrmi.{c,h},

today Lucas has reported #518725 - atitvout FTBFS because of missing
*_MASK defines.
Seeing that bug and remembering fun with lrmi myself, I thought I can
have a look how many other packages will FTBFS.

The following packages contain lrmi.{c,h}, and the ones with the *
FTBFS:
read-edid*
atitvout*
s3switch*
libx86
v86d
xresprobe*
zhcon*
lphdisk*
svgalib*
usplash

makes 7 of 10 - nice quota. btw v86d and usplash do not build the
shipped lrmi.c but link against libx86 which has a patched one.

The patch is trivial an can be found in the current libx86 package.
But actually we should stop duplicating code (esp. OLD code - some
packages have lrmi.c from lrmi 0.6, 0.10 is latest) and using libx86
only.
If only libx86 would have latest lrmi code...

David, is there any chance that libx86 will be updated someday? Esp
because upstream of v86d has an updated 0.10 in his git at
http://repo.or.cz/w/v86d.git and Debian's v86d is not using it in
favour of not build duplicate code.

All other (incl David), is there any interest in forking libx86 and
using it globally instead of fixing that ftbfs 7 times?

Attached is a dd-list of the failing packages, just for the case

Regards
Evgeni


--
Bruce Schneier Fact Number 127:
Bruce Schneier's DNA is a secure platform and cannot be cloned.
Philippe Coval <rzr@users.sf.net>
atitvout

Debian X Strike Force <debian-x@lists.debian.org>
xresprobe

Yu Guanghui <ygh@debian.org>
zhcon

Guido Guenther <agx@debian.org>
s3switch

Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>
svgalib

Roberto Lumbreras <rover@debian.org>
lphdisk

David Nusinow <dnusinow@debian.org>
xresprobe (U)

Sam Hocevar (Debian packages) <sam+deb@zoy.org>
svgalib (U)

Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
read-edid

Otavio Salvador <otavio@debian.org>
xresprobe (U)
 
Old 03-08-2009, 04:17 PM
Matthew Garrett
 
Default lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

Evgeni Golov <sargentd@die-welt.net> wrote:

>All other (incl David), is there any interest in forking libx86 and
>using it globally instead of fixing that ftbfs 7 times?

You could just send a patch to libx86 upstream, you know...

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.devel@srcf.ucam.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-08-2009, 04:36 PM
Evgeni Golov
 
Default lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:17:44 +0000 Matthew Garrett wrote:

> >All other (incl David), is there any interest in forking libx86 and
> >using it globally instead of fixing that ftbfs 7 times?
>
> You could just send a patch to libx86 upstream, you know...

The patch for what?
For the *_MASK defines FTBFS? Thats the task of the maintainer.
For updating to lrmi 0.10? Maybe.
For incorporating the fixes from v86d? Wasnt able to incorporate them
to the actual libx86 as v86d used 0.10 as base.

Regards


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-08-2009, 05:02 PM
David Paleino
 
Default lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 16:49:33 +0100, Evgeni Golov wrote:

> Dear debian-devel,
> dear maintainers of packages that contain lrmi.{c,h},

Hello Evgeni,
thanks for this heads up.

> [..]
> The following packages contain lrmi.{c,h}, [..]
> But actually we should stop duplicating code (esp. OLD code - some
> packages have lrmi.c from lrmi 0.6, 0.10 is latest) and using libx86
> only.
> If only libx86 would have latest lrmi code...
>
> David, is there any chance that libx86 will be updated someday? Esp
> because upstream of v86d has an updated 0.10 in his git at
> http://repo.or.cz/w/v86d.git and Debian's v86d is not using it in
> favour of not build duplicate code.
>
> All other (incl David), is there any interest in forking libx86 and
> using it globally instead of fixing that ftbfs 7 times?

My proposal is: is there any interest in a separate liblrmi package, which
others package would Depend on?
Sure, that would need some patching of those 10 packages (to use the
system-wide instead of the bundled one), but I believe it's a saner solution --
and it avoids bundled code at all.

I'll start work on liblrmi (i.e. ITP, making it, buildtesting relevant
packages, [..]) if some interest is shown.

Kindly,
David

--
. '`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
 
Old 03-08-2009, 05:10 PM
Matthew Garrett
 
Default lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

Evgeni Golov <sargentd@die-welt.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:17:44 +0000 Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> >All other (incl David), is there any interest in forking libx86 and
>> >using it globally instead of fixing that ftbfs 7 times?
>>
>> You could just send a patch to libx86 upstream, you know...
>
>The patch for what?
>For the *_MASK defines FTBFS? Thats the task of the maintainer.
>For updating to lrmi 0.10? Maybe.
>For incorporating the fixes from v86d? Wasnt able to incorporate them
>to the actual libx86 as v86d used 0.10 as base.

Whichever of the above you were planning to put in any forked version
and are applicable to distributions other than Debian. I'm happy to
merge stuff.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.devel@srcf.ucam.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-08-2009, 05:12 PM
Matthew Garrett
 
Default lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

David Paleino <d.paleino@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'll start work on liblrmi (i.e. ITP, making it, buildtesting relevant
>packages, [..]) if some interest is shown.

I'm not sure what the benefit would be over libx86? liblrmi would leave
you stuck with x86, whereas using libx86 means that much of the code
will also work on amd64.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.devel@srcf.ucam.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-08-2009, 05:19 PM
David Paleino
 
Default lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

Please don't break threads

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:12:01 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> David Paleino <d.paleino@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I'll start work on liblrmi (i.e. ITP, making it, buildtesting relevant
> >packages, [..]) if some interest is shown.
>
> I'm not sure what the benefit would be over libx86?

IMVHO code bundling is *never* good.

> liblrmi would leave you stuck with x86, whereas using libx86 means that much
> of the code will also work on amd64.

Ok, I goofed there
Honestly, liblrmi0 would only be a dependency of libx86 on x86, while it
would use x86emu on other arches. Other packages would then depend on libx86,
stop. Am I totally wrong?

Kindly,
David

--
. '`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
 
Old 03-08-2009, 05:24 PM
David Paleino
 
Default lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 19:19:47 +0100, David Paleino wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:12:01 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > David Paleino <d.paleino@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I'll start work on liblrmi (i.e. ITP, making it, buildtesting relevant
> > >packages, [..]) if some interest is shown.
> >
> > I'm not sure what the benefit would be over libx86?
>
> IMVHO code bundling is *never* good.

Or, since the code would only be bundled in *one* package, we could just skip
this "issue" and do everything in libx86.

David

--
. '`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
 
Old 03-08-2009, 06:34 PM
Evgeni Golov
 
Default lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 19:24:22 +0100 David Paleino wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 19:19:47 +0100, David Paleino wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:12:01 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > > David Paleino <d.paleino@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I'll start work on liblrmi (i.e. ITP, making it, buildtesting relevant
> > > >packages, [..]) if some interest is shown.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what the benefit would be over libx86?
> >
> > IMVHO code bundling is *never* good.
>
> Or, since the code would only be bundled in *one* package, we could just skip
> this "issue" and do everything in libx86.

May I throw in the fact that one sometimes wants x86emu on i386? e.g.
v86d works for me when built with x86emu, but not with lrmi, dunno who
to blame though (libx86 built for x86emu is okay too).


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-08-2009, 07:07 PM
David Paleino
 
Default lrmi vs new kernels vs libx86

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 16:49:33 +0100, Evgeni Golov wrote:

> [..]
> David, is there any chance that libx86 will be updated someday? Esp
> because upstream of v86d has an updated 0.10 in his git at
> http://repo.or.cz/w/v86d.git and Debian's v86d is not using it in
> favour of not build duplicate code.
>
> All other (incl David), is there any interest in forking libx86 and
> using it globally instead of fixing that ftbfs 7 times?

I prepared a package with an updated LRMI:

http://alioth.debian.org/~hanska-guest/apt/unstable/libx86_1.1+ds1-3.dsc

All the people involved: would you please testbuild your packages against it?
Thank you.

Matthew: since you're libx86 upstream, you might be interested in the contents
of debian/patches, I'll remove those as soon as you release a new version
(also, please drop debian/ from upstream tarballs)

Kindly,
David

--
. '`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:19 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org