Subject: Re: libGLU in mesa-dri
To: Blair Sadewitz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Dieter Baron <email@example.com>
Date: 04/15/2007 23:25:13
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> Blair wrote:
: Is there a reason libGLU is being built in this package? All existing
: pkgsrc packages depend on graphics/glu, and libGLU depends on libGL.
It's a mistake.
I'm currently working on merging mesa-dri and MesaLib, building DRI
support based on an option, and that was one of the first things I
fixed. (Currently, I have a MesaLib package that unconditionally
builds dri drivers.)
: When I've used this package, I SUBST_SED out all references to
: -lpthread and remove glu and glut/glx from the list of build
: directories. I know this isn't strictly on-topic, but please, you
: will avoid a whole lot of headaches if you don't link *ANYTHING* in
: Mesa with -lpthread (it has to be removed from
: src/mesa/drivers/dri/glcore/Makefile in addition to in the configs).
Sounds good, I'll do that, too.
: Then, make sure libX11 is built WITHOUT the X thread stubs and not
: linked to -lpthread. XTHREADLIB should be set to "-lpthread", though.
: This way, the NetBSD thread stubs will actually work, and everything
: will be automagically thread-safe.
Sounds good. What does the x11/libX11 package do?
: By my lights, we should switch to individual packages for each
Why? How difficult is it to split the package? Can the libraries
be built separately without compiling code multiple times?
[Currently, we have one MesaLib package that installs libGL and
libGLw, a glu package that installs libGLU, and a glut package that
installs libGLUT. Do you want an additional glw package?]
: Moreover, we should completely scrap the Mesa-provided build
: system and use our own BSD makefiles. OpenBSD's Xorg build does this,
: as does our own xsrc.
Who would maintain this new build system? Have you contacted the
maintainers of Mesa3D wether they would accept patches to use libtool
(which is your greates concern, IIUC)?
Maintaining a complete build system in pkgsrc seems like a lot of
effort to me. What would be the benefit?
: It might even make sense to package Mesa's GL headers seperately,
: perhaps even generating a pkg-config file (see mk/fuse.buildlink3.mk
: for an example of this) for them so that we could pull them in when
: x11/glproto is outdated or otherwise insufficient.
Again, why? This is, again, additional effort to maintain on
updates. What would be the benefit?
PS: Maybe we should move this to tech-pkg? After all, we are
discussing the Mesa packages.