On 05/10/14 01:26, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Christian König <deathsim...@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.veli...@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.veli...@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.veli...@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
?
-Emil
> It seems reasonable to
> make vdpau work sanely (i.e. revert the commit that breaks my, and I
> presume many others', setup by attempt to break out of the specified
> prefix) and let someone else work out the omx stuff. I don't think the
> revert should be held up based on the lack of some additional change
> -- it never should have gone in in the first place.
>
> -ilia
>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
