[Mesa-dev] [ANNOUNCE] mesa 13.0.0-rc1
jason at jlekstrand.net
Thu Oct 20 15:20:53 UTC 2016
On Oct 20, 2016 8:11 AM, "Emil Velikov" <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 October 2016 at 20:31, Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >> On 19 October 2016 at 19:50, Kai Wasserbäch <kai at dev.carbon-project.org
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hey Emil,
> >> > just curious why you did the revert
> >> >
> >> > (<
> >> > Wouldn't distros just set --disable-vulkan-icd-full-driver-path (I
> >> > I'm
> >> > doing that for Multi-Arch compatibility for my local builds)?
> >> >
> >> Yes they can, yet they shouldn't need to bother to begin with, since
> >> the code itself is not aimed at deployment ;-)
> > What code isn't aimed at deployment?
> > Don't just go reverting commits in the release branch on your own
> > with no discussion. If that flag is causing problems for distros and
> > packagers, let's hear from them and they can tell us what they need.
> I believe I mentioned it before - due to the high traffic on mesa-dev@
> little-to-no distro maintainers get to read upon decisions and/or cast
> their opinion. In most cases they'll just workout something locally
> and not bother (-ETIME or other) prodding upstream.
> I believe I explained it in length why the original and follow up are
> bad idea, suggested two alternative solutions and a Nack on the patch.
> Only to get all that fall though the cracks :-\
> > Also, it's not in there for developers. It's in there for people who
> > to do a local build and have "make install" work somewhat correctly.
> Doing `make install' to a non-default prefix falls in the
> development/testing category.
> In either case using LD_LIBRARY_PATH is a must _regardless_ of the
> software that one's building/testing. That is unless you're using
> chroot :-)
Works today without LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> > They're free to do that local build from a release branch or a tarball
> > it should still work.
> > Also, you're making piles of pain for packagers who
> > now have a configure flag that works in 12.0 git and 13.0 git but in
> > release it is gone.
> Please don't get me wrong, but I think you're over-dramatizing this a
> little. Can you be specific where this has caused/will cause pain ?
> I regularly check what distros do and try to steer them as things get
> rocky. The revert helps exactly this - it removes the "pain" that it
> would cause to distros since there's a) new option and b) the default
> value of it is _against_ their preference.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the mesa-dev