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

Christian K├Ânig deathsimple at vodafone.de
Tue Oct 7 06:13:25 PDT 2014


Am 07.10.2014 um 15:07 schrieb Ilia Mirkin:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Christian König <deathsimple at vodafone.de> wrote:
>> Am 07.10.2014 um 03:11 schrieb Ilia Mirkin:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Well, that was the whole point of the change. For OMX you don't have a
>> standardized sub directory where to put the loadable modules, e.g. it's
>> named libomxil-bellagio0 on Ubuntu and completely different on Fedora.
>>
>> So what I did was just to use the $pluginsdir from libomxil-bellagio.pc to
>> determine where to install the OMX files and ignored $prefix. But Emil
>> wanted all generated plugins to be installed consistently so he changed
>> VDPAU to the same behavior as OMX.
>>
>> I'm perfectly fine with either approach, but it should just be consistent.
> How about just failing the configure if you enable OMX (or anything
> else we don't know what to do with) but don't specify an install dir?

Would work for me as well, but doesn't sounds like the ideal solution.

Looking into the libomxil-bellagio.pc we have a whole chain of 
definitions like:
prefix=/usr
exec_prefix=${prefix}
libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib
includedir=${prefix}/include
toolsdir=${exec_prefix}/bin
pluginsdir=${libdir}/libomxil-bellagio0

Isn't it somehow possible to let pkg-config assume a different $prefix 
while evaluating the $pluginsdir variable (I honestly have no idea how 
pkg-config works)?

That would solve the problem for OMX and make the behavior consistent again.

Regards,
Christian.

>
>    -ilia



More information about the mesa-dev mailing list