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

Ilia Mirkin imirkin at alum.mit.edu
Mon Oct 6 18:36:02 PDT 2014

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/10/14 01:26, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Do I take that you've missed that my volunteer request covers vdpau, omx and va ?
> I'm under the assumption that OMX/etc don't do anything ridiculous. If
> they do, it's a bug just like this vdpau situation, and should be
> addressed as such. However addressing them should not preclude vdpau
> from being fixed.
> I'm getting this >< close to just not building vdpau anymore due to
> this breakage.

What I'm really perplexed by, by the way, is the lack of people
jumping in to R-b this. There have been a few weak "yes, this is bad"
but no R-b. I would have thought that installing outside of the prefix
is such an obvious no-no that a change introducing that would just get
insta-reverted. But perhaps I'm wrong, and people do expect random
system files to get overwritten when they run 'make install' despite
having explicitly said it should install somewhere else, and I should
just crawl back into my hole instead of trying to get the kids to stop
playing on my damn lawn.


More information about the mesa-dev mailing list