Re: pkg/43811 (pkgsrc-2010Q2 - emulators/vice build (wrong patch))

[Matthew Mondor <mm_lists%pulsar-zone.net@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/43811; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Matthew Mondor <mm_lists%pulsar-zone.net@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: pkg/43811 (pkgsrc-2010Q2 - emulators/vice build (wrong patch))
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:36:05 -0400

 On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:05:03 +0000 (UTC)
 Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> wrote:
 
 > The following reply was made to PR pkg/43811; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > 
 > From: Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>
 > To: NetBSD bugtracking <gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost>
 > Cc: 
 > Subject: Re: pkg/43811 (pkgsrc-2010Q2 - emulators/vice build (wrong patch))
 > Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:00:53 +0200
 > 
 >  On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 08:15:04AM +0000, Matthew Mondor wrote:
 >  >  I tried -current vice (2.2) and the problem was still true with the
 >  >  include unless I applied this change:
 >  
 >  The problem is that with X from xsrc and your patch applied, vice
 >  doesn't compile:
 >  
 >  x11video.c: In function 'shmhandler':
 >  x11video.c:349: error: 'X_ShmAttach' undeclared (first use in this function)
 >  x11video.c:349: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
 >  x11video.c:349: error: for each function it appears in.)
 >  
 >  Do you have an idea how to solve this?
 
 This is quite odd...  I use the native X11R7 from NetBSD 5.1_RC3.
 Here, x11video.c #include <videoarch.h> which in turn #include
 <X11/extensions/XShm.h> if USE_MITSHM, which include the X_ShmAttach
 definition.
 
 I noticed that on this system, X11/extensions/shmstr.h also includes
 XShm.h.  This system also does not have a shmproto.h.  Does your system
 also have an shmstr.h, and if so, does that itself include shmproto.h?
 If so, I guess that we could replace the XShm.h include by an shmstr.h
 one.
 
 Otherwise, we probably need to perform some X11_TYPE or version
 specific check to decide when to #include <shmproto.h> or not...  Or
 perhaps make autoconf check for the existence of shmproto.h and if so
 define HAVE_SHMPROTO_H, and #ifdef the shmproto.h include with that?
 
 The manual page for XShm(3) makes no mention of shmproto.h, only of
 sys/shm.h and X11/extensions/XShm.h, which might suggest that including
 shmproto.h was to cope with a bug on a specific X11 system which
 doesn't automatically include it via its XShm.h.  Unless XShm.h is now
 deprecated and shmproto.h is the new official include on newer X11?
 
 behemoth$ Xorg -version
 
 X.Org X Server 1.6.3
 Release Date: 2009-7-7
 X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0
 Build Operating System: NetBSD/i386  - 
 Current Operating System: NetBSD behemoth.xisop 5.1_RC3 NetBSD 5.1_RC3 
(GENERIC_MM) #2: Sun Aug 29 03:28:50 EDT 2010  
root%behemoth.xisop@localhost:/usr/obj/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC_MM i386
 Build Date: 09 July 2009  12:14:03AM
 
 Of course, another option would be to make a package option for the
 mitshm extension, and disable it by default, leaving users to enable it
 if it works on their particular system, but the xvideo feature also
 seems dependent on it from what I see (I see various XShm using code
 enclosed in #ifdef HAVE_XVIDEO without HAVE_MITSHM in x11video.c).
 This would probably be a last resort as it would disable acceleration
 by default, and would produce a build error if enabled for -current
 users...
 
 Thanks,
 -- 
 Matt