GNU bug report logs - #34824
[PATCH staging] libdrm/Mesa Meson patch series

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 34824 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 34824 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH staging] libdrm/Mesa Meson patch series
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 14:16:15 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hey Guix,

this patch series changes libdrm and Mesa to use Meson.

A few notes to go along with the patches:

Patch #1: Libdrm on Github mentions that Autotools is the legacy build
system for libdrm, so it seems better to change this to use Meson.
Patch #2: Mesa is gonna drop support for Autotools entirely at some
point in 2019, so it seems good to make the switch sooner rather than
later. I think I converted all the configure flags to the new format.
Patches #3-6: For some reason these packages now need an explicit mesa
input. I haven't run into other packages that have this problem yet.

[0001-gnu-libdrm-Switch-to-meson-build-system.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0002-gnu-mesa-Switch-to-meson-build-system.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0003-gnu-libsmpeg-Add-mesa-input.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0004-gnu-sdl-image-Add-mesa-input.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0005-gnu-sdl-mixer-Add-mesa-input.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0006-gnu-sdl-net-Add-mesa-input.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[Message part 8 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #8 received at 34824 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
To: Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com>, 34824 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#34824] [PATCH staging] libdrm/Mesa Meson patch series
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 19:01:59 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com> writes:

> Hey Guix,
>
> this patch series changes libdrm and Mesa to use Meson.
>
> A few notes to go along with the patches:
>
> Patch #1: Libdrm on Github mentions that Autotools is the legacy build
> system for libdrm, so it seems better to change this to use Meson.
> Patch #2: Mesa is gonna drop support for Autotools entirely at some
> point in 2019, so it seems good to make the switch sooner rather than
> later. I think I converted all the configure flags to the new format.
> Patches #3-6: For some reason these packages now need an explicit mesa
> input. I haven't run into other packages that have this problem yet.

The first two patches LGTM, but we should figure out why some packages
need special attention and squash the fixes with the Mesa (or libdrm)
change.

I see the other packages are SDL-related, maybe the libSDL pkg-config
files are different after this change?  Or "sdl-config" prints something
weird?

Thanks for looking after these packages :-)

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #11 received at 34824 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com>
To: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Cc: 34824 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#34824] [PATCH staging] libdrm/Mesa Meson patch series
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 10:44:41 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Marius,

thanks for the review.

So when I rebuilt my entire system a while back with these patches it
was only those few SDL packages that were affected. Unfortunately I have
no way of knowing for sure if it won't happen anywhere else, but it
does seem to be something contained to just SDL(1).

The packages fail with the following error if "mesa" isn't an explicit
input:

ld: cannot find -lGL
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status

WDYT? Should I go ahead and push these patches or do you have other
ideas?

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 19:01:59 +0100
Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> wrote:

> Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com> writes:
> 
> > Hey Guix,
> >
> > this patch series changes libdrm and Mesa to use Meson.
> >
> > A few notes to go along with the patches:
> >
> > Patch #1: Libdrm on Github mentions that Autotools is the legacy
> > build system for libdrm, so it seems better to change this to use
> > Meson. Patch #2: Mesa is gonna drop support for Autotools entirely
> > at some point in 2019, so it seems good to make the switch sooner
> > rather than later. I think I converted all the configure flags to
> > the new format. Patches #3-6: For some reason these packages now
> > need an explicit mesa input. I haven't run into other packages that
> > have this problem yet.  
> 
> The first two patches LGTM, but we should figure out why some packages
> need special attention and squash the fixes with the Mesa (or libdrm)
> change.
> 
> I see the other packages are SDL-related, maybe the libSDL pkg-config
> files are different after this change?  Or "sdl-config" prints
> something weird?
> 
> Thanks for looking after these packages :-)

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #14 received at 34824 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
To: Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com>
Cc: 34824 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#34824] [PATCH staging] libdrm/Mesa Meson patch series
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 15:17:27 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com> writes:

> Hi Marius,
>
> thanks for the review.
>
> So when I rebuilt my entire system a while back with these patches it
> was only those few SDL packages that were affected. Unfortunately I have
> no way of knowing for sure if it won't happen anywhere else, but it
> does seem to be something contained to just SDL(1).
>
> The packages fail with the following error if "mesa" isn't an explicit
> input:
>
> ld: cannot find -lGL
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
>
> WDYT? Should I go ahead and push these patches or do you have other
> ideas?

Well, we still don't know why -lGL is suddenly there.  Did you inspect
the pkg-config files or sdl-config output to figure out why?

I suspect Mesa should be propagated somewhere, instead of added as an
input in a bunch of places.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #17 received at 34824 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com>
To: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Cc: 34824 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#34824] [PATCH staging] libdrm/Mesa Meson patch series
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:25:45 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I think you're right! Changing mesa from a regular input to a
propogated one seems to have fixed all the issues for SDL. I no longer
need patches 3-6. See below for what we can use instead. Can I push the
patches now?

* gnu/packages/sdl.scm (sdl)[propogated-inputs]: Add mesa.
[inputs]: Remove mesa.
---
 gnu/packages/sdl.scm | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/sdl.scm b/gnu/packages/sdl.scm
index 8d2a02437..e13958984 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/sdl.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/sdl.scm
@@ -87,10 +87,10 @@
     (propagated-inputs
      ;; SDL headers include X11 headers.
      `(("libx11" ,libx11)
-       ("libcap" ,libcap))) ; 'libSDL.la' contain `-lcap'.
+       ("libcap" ,libcap) ; 'libSDL.la' contain `-lcap'.
+       ("mesa" ,mesa)))
     (native-inputs `(("pkg-config" ,pkg-config)))
     (inputs `(("libxrandr" ,libxrandr)
-              ("mesa" ,mesa)
               ("glu" ,glu)
               ("alsa-lib" ,alsa-lib)
               ("pulseaudio" ,pulseaudio)))
-- 
2.21.0

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 15:17:27 +0100
Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> wrote:

> Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com> writes:
> 
> > Hi Marius,
> >
> > thanks for the review.
> >
> > So when I rebuilt my entire system a while back with these patches
> > it was only those few SDL packages that were affected.
> > Unfortunately I have no way of knowing for sure if it won't happen
> > anywhere else, but it does seem to be something contained to just
> > SDL(1).
> >
> > The packages fail with the following error if "mesa" isn't an
> > explicit input:
> >
> > ld: cannot find -lGL
> > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> >
> > WDYT? Should I go ahead and push these patches or do you have other
> > ideas?  
> 
> Well, we still don't know why -lGL is suddenly there.  Did you inspect
> the pkg-config files or sdl-config output to figure out why?
> 
> I suspect Mesa should be propagated somewhere, instead of added as an
> input in a bunch of places.

[0003-gnu-sdl-Propogate-mesa-input.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[Message part 3 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #20 received at 34824 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
To: Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com>
Cc: 34824 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#34824] [PATCH staging] libdrm/Mesa Meson patch series
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:50:07 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com> writes:

> I think you're right! Changing mesa from a regular input to a
> propogated one seems to have fixed all the issues for SDL. I no longer
> need patches 3-6. See below for what we can use instead. Can I push the
> patches now?

Well, we still don't know *why* it is needed :-)

Could you add a comment about where it comes from (e.g. pkg-config or
the .la files) and squash this commit with the Mesa patch?  LGTM with
that change, thanks!

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #25 received at 34824-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com>
To: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Cc: 34824-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#34824] [PATCH staging] libdrm/Mesa Meson patch series
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 11:10:44 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Done, along with an update to 18.3.5.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:50:07 +0100
Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> wrote:

> Rutger Helling <rhelling <at> mykolab.com> writes:
> 
> > I think you're right! Changing mesa from a regular input to a
> > propogated one seems to have fixed all the issues for SDL. I no
> > longer need patches 3-6. See below for what we can use instead. Can
> > I push the patches now?  
> 
> Well, we still don't know *why* it is needed :-)
> 
> Could you add a comment about where it comes from (e.g. pkg-config or
> the .la files) and squash this commit with the Mesa patch?  LGTM with
> that change, thanks!

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.