Re: Mesa 6.5 Development Release
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:35:44AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: Mesa 6.5 is a development release with known problems. Should that be allowed to migrate to testing? It's my impression that the semantics you seem to attribute to sid have mostly shifted to experimental and that sid is mostly considered a staging area for testing now. Development branches of Mesa routinely break the odd targets (glide, directfb, whatever else ...). Continously adding and removing packages from the archive is not really something we want to set as a precedent. I can imagine a Mesa package in experimental that ships a bunch of targets and manages the whole thing with symlinks, e.g. /usr/lib/mesa/glide/libGL.so.1 /usr/lib/mesa/directfb/libGL.so.1 /usr/lib/mesa/dri/libGL.so.1 /usr/lib/mesa/swrast/libGL.so.1 /usr/lib/libGL.so.1 - mesa/glide/libGL.so.1 I actually have code lying around that does something like this. Needless to say, the package is big. The idea of packaging this would be allowing people to test the development branch in order to find and report problems. It would carry a big friendly THIS WILL BREAK warning. Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mesa 6.5 Development Release
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 06:58:55PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: The Xprint server has OpenGL support which is switched by identifying the mesa source. I'm not entirely certain what it's for, I presume it's for grabbing a snapshot of the current GL image in a window, for sending to a printer. It uses the software rasterizer to render widgets with associated OpenGL contexts. It basically compiles the entire rasterizer into the Xprint server. It doesn't actually grab a snapshot of the current image, it renders it from scratch. Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mesa 6.5 Development Release
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 23:11 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: I've been working on packaging the latest development snapshot of Mesa (6.5) in order to get DRI working with the latest i810 X.Org driver in Debian. Let me elaborate on my allusions in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=359328 on how I think this situation should be handled: * xf86-video-i810 in sid should be reverted to a release compatible with Mesa 6.4, e.g. the version released with X.Org 7.0. * The current release of xf86-video-i810/intel and Mesa 6.5 can be uploaded to experimental. * Once X.Org 7.1 is out, its version of xf86-video-i810 and Mesa 6.6 can go to sid. Comments? Maybe the incompatibility should also be reflected in the package relationships somehow? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast| http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: Mesa 6.5 Development Release
* Daniel Stone wrote: On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:45:29AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 23:11 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: I've been working on packaging the latest development snapshot of Mesa (6.5) in order to get DRI working with the latest i810 X.Org driver in Debian. Let me elaborate on my allusions in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=359328 on how I think this situation should be handled: * xf86-video-i810 in sid should be reverted to a release compatible with Mesa 6.4, e.g. the version released with X.Org 7.0. * The current release of xf86-video-i810/intel and Mesa 6.5 can be uploaded to experimental. * Once X.Org 7.1 is out, its version of xf86-video-i810 and Mesa 6.6 can go to sid. Comments? Maybe the incompatibility should also be reflected in the package relationships somehow? Is there anything stopping us from putting Mesa 6.5 and xf86-video-i810 in now? Maybe 6.5 could temporarily stop providing the mesa-swrast-source package (hell, the latter could come from its own package) until such time as we get a server release that's compatible with it. In any case, I don't see what's the problem with pushing these release versions into *unstable* ... While I agree with Daniel in general, recent reactions to the upload of modular X.Org to unstable have made it clear that a lot of people don't expect things to be potentially broken in unstable. With that in mind, Michel's proposal seems more appropriate. It is also similar to what Marcelo initially proposed (off-list). Thierry P.S.: no need to Cc: me, I'm subscribed to both, pkg-mesa-devel and debian-x, mailing lists signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Mesa 6.5 Development Release
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:47 +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: Is there anything stopping us from putting Mesa 6.5 and xf86-video-i810 in now? Well, the latter is in sid, that's the origin of the problem at hand. Maybe 6.5 could temporarily stop providing the mesa-swrast-source package (hell, the latter could come from its own package) FWIW, that might be a good idea until the Mesa and xserver builds have been completely decoupled. Then again, is anything else using mesa-swrast-source at all? If not, the files could just be included in the xserver tarball? In any case, I don't see what's the problem with pushing these release versions into *unstable* ... Mesa 6.5 is a development release with known problems. Should that be allowed to migrate to testing? It's my impression that the semantics you seem to attribute to sid have mostly shifted to experimental and that sid is mostly considered a staging area for testing now. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast| http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: Mesa 6.5 Development Release
* Michel Dänzer wrote: On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:47 +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: Is there anything stopping us from putting Mesa 6.5 and xf86-video-i810 in now? Well, the latter is in sid, that's the origin of the problem at hand. Maybe 6.5 could temporarily stop providing the mesa-swrast-source package (hell, the latter could come from its own package) FWIW, that might be a good idea until the Mesa and xserver builds have been completely decoupled. Then again, is anything else using mesa-swrast-source at all? If not, the files could just be included in the xserver tarball? $ grep-aptavail -F Depends,Build-Depends mesa-swx11-source $ apt-cache dumpavail | grep mesa-swx11-source Package: mesa-swx11-source Filename: pool/main/m/mesa/mesa-swx11-source_6.4.1-0.4_all.deb So I guess there's no harm in removing it. Cheers, Thierry signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Mesa 6.5 Development Release
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:45:29AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 23:11 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: I've been working on packaging the latest development snapshot of Mesa (6.5) in order to get DRI working with the latest i810 X.Org driver in Debian. Let me elaborate on my allusions in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=359328 on how I think this situation should be handled: * xf86-video-i810 in sid should be reverted to a release compatible with Mesa 6.4, e.g. the version released with X.Org 7.0. * The current release of xf86-video-i810/intel and Mesa 6.5 can be uploaded to experimental. * Once X.Org 7.1 is out, its version of xf86-video-i810 and Mesa 6.6 can go to sid. Comments? Maybe the incompatibility should also be reflected in the package relationships somehow? Is there anything stopping us from putting Mesa 6.5 and xf86-video-i810 in now? Maybe 6.5 could temporarily stop providing the mesa-swrast-source package (hell, the latter could come from its own package) until such time as we get a server release that's compatible with it. In any case, I don't see what's the problem with pushing these release versions into *unstable* ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mesa 6.5 Development Release
Michel DÃnzer wrote: Maybe 6.5 could temporarily stop providing the mesa-swrast-source package (hell, the latter could come from its own package) FWIW, that might be a good idea until the Mesa and xserver builds have been completely decoupled. Then again, is anything else using mesa-swrast-source at all? If not, the files could just be included in the xserver tarball? The Xprint server has OpenGL support which is switched by identifying the mesa source. I'm not entirely certain what it's for, I presume it's for grabbing a snapshot of the current GL image in a window, for sending to a printer. Xprint is build from the same xserver code (it's another alternative Xserver alongside Xorg, Xnext, Xdmx etc). At some point in the future, once its freetype support has stabilised, I'd expect it to be assimilated back into the xserver-xorg source package, so then there'd be just the one source tarball that wants to use mesa source. Drew
