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
