<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/">
</head>
<body><table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
<tr>
<th>Bug ID</th>
<td><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - List of 19.20-812932 release mistakes"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110956">110956</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Summary</th>
<td>List of 19.20-812932 release mistakes
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Product</th>
<td>DRI
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Version</th>
<td>unspecified
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Hardware</th>
<td>x86-64 (AMD64)
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>OS</th>
<td>Linux (All)
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Status</th>
<td>NEW
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Severity</th>
<td>normal
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Priority</th>
<td>medium
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Component</th>
<td>DRM/AMDgpu-pro
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Assignee</th>
<td>dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Reporter</th>
<td>ashark@linuxcomp.ru
</td>
</tr></table>
<p>
<div>
<pre>I was repacking amdgpu-pro (ubuntu archive) for Arch linux, and while doing
this, I have noticed many probable mistakes. Here is my list.
- wsa-amdgpu package has empty copyright file
- Release page says that it supports ubuntu x86_64, but actually it can be
installed on ubuntu x86. Is this an error?
- In clinfo package description Homepage link is broken (404 page)
- In alternative dependencies there are such occurances: libva1-amdgpu,
libva2-amdgpu, libvdpau-1-amdgpu. But these are not provided neither by ubuntu
repos, nor in bundled archive. So is it an error?
- Provided libdrm packages have MIT licence. But are they built completely from
open source? In the changelog I can see that it is some
amd-mainline-hybrid-master20190125. And actually if I omit these packages, then
proprietay libgl driver and clinfo utility crashes. I want to avoid needing of
installation of these libdrm packages (libdrm-amdgpu-amdgpu1,
libdrm-amdgpu-common, libdrm2-amdgpu). Is that possible?
- amdgpu-pro(-hwe) and amdgpu-pro-lib32 depend on amdgpu(-hwe), but actually
they should depend on amdgpu-lib(-hwe) (just like open variant packages).
Because of that even when running installer with --no-dkms, it still is in
packages list (because amdgpu(-hwe) depends on it). Is it intensional ar just a
mistake?
- In libgl1-amdgpu-mesa-dri in postinst script in Support I+A hybrid graphics
there is such condition:
if [ -f ... ] && [ "str1" != "str2" ]; then
You just compare two different strings? I guess you wanted to compare folder
contents. But now that condition will always be false.
in if [ "${f%%/*}"... there is extra percent symbol, you should remove it. Btw,
in rpm variants scriptlets, it is already fixed.
- In the documentation at readthedocs there is missing information about Open
Vulkan component
- There is actually no PX package in bundled archive, so maybe remove it
completely from installer script and from the documentation?
- Release page says that you need to install lunar_sdk for vulkan to work. Is
it really true? And even then, it says that you need version 1.1.106.0, but in
vulkan-amdgpu-pro inside json file we have 1.1.108. The documentation is
outdated?
- roct-amdgpu-pro and roct-amdgpu-pro-dev have MIT licence. Are they actually
open souce components? If yes, then why do they called with -pro suffix?
- Can you remove hardcoded declining of installation on unsupported ubuntu
release? Just leave a warning (as you let it for non-ubuntu systems), but let
the users to decide. Otherwise, they need to edit release version or modify
debian packages internals (I even did a special script for this and published
in this bugtracking system).</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>