[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] Revert "configure: ask vdpau.pc for the default location of the vdpau drivers"

Ilia Mirkin imirkin at alum.mit.edu
Sat Oct 4 17:26:36 PDT 2014

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Christian König <deathsimple at vodafone.de> wrote:
> Am 03.10.2014 um 03:53 schrieb Ilia Mirkin:
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 02/10/14 06:41, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 29/09/14 17:24, Matt Turner wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Emil Velikov
>>>>>> <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> So all in all we have the following:
>>>>>>> Some distributions/people choose odd location of the modules. Which
>>>>>>> can lead to the system (vdpau/omx) looking at the wrong place for the
>>>>>>> backends, i.e. not working. One can consider that there is no way to
>>>>>>> override the module location at runtime.
>>>>>> Do we have more specifics? If they're doing something stupid and it
>>>>>> breaks, they typically get to keep the pieces.
>>>>>> Debian/Ubuntu install to /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/vdpau/? Isn't
>>>>>> ${libdir} just /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ in that case?
>>>>> Hmm I was under the impression that ${libdir} and
>>>>> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ are different things. Can I consider you as
>>>>> a
>>>>> volunteer for the following, even if the chances of it happening are
>>>>> zero ?
>>>>> On 29/09/14 17:16, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> How many volunteers do we have that will guide Debian/Ubuntu/other to
>>>>>> do the correct thing ? If we have at least one, I will be OK with
>>>>>> reverting the patch.
>>>> Guide who? The maintainers? Sure, I'll happily help them out.
>>> Pretty much everyone that reports a bug/send an email to the ML/posts a
>>> big and flashy "review" along the lines of "vdpau/omx/va is
>>> useless/broken" like YKW.
>>> The numbers/reports will be low (if any), but the encounters are likely
>>> to be quite "interesting".
>> I'm more than happy to enlighten people as to why what they're doing
>> is wrong. I guess this patch is good then?
> You need to implement the same for the OMX target as well, since the
> intention was to get a consistent behavior.

Unfortunately I don't know anything about OMX. It seems reasonable to
make vdpau work sanely (i.e. revert the commit that breaks my, and I
presume many others', setup by attempt to break out of the specified
prefix) and let someone else work out the omx stuff. I don't think the
revert should be held up based on the lack of some additional change
-- it never should have gone in in the first place.


More information about the mesa-dev mailing list