synaptics vs libinput and GNOME 3.20 no longer supporting synaptics
[ Bcc debian-x and debian-gtk-gnome, discussion on -devel as the topic crosses the boundaries of multiple teams ] Hello, it has been some time that GNOME 3.20 users have been unable to configure their touchpad[1] because: 1/ xserver-xorg-input-synaptics cherry-picked an upstream commit[2] that gives the priority to the synaptics driver to handle touchpads 2/ xserver-xorg-input-synaptics is always installed as a dependency of xserver-xorg-input-all 3/ gnome-control-center 3.20 uses libinput and no longer support synaptics Clearly points 1 and 2 are in conflict: the upstream explanation is that that the package should not be installed by default and we do install it by default. Looking at https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-xorg/debian/xorg.git I see that we have unreleased changes to not install the synaptics driver by default. Timo or Emilio, can you upload those changes? Even with this driver no longer installed by default, this will not fix the setup for users who are upgrading. Do you have any suggestion on how we should handle upgrades? My best idea right now is that gnome-control-center's postint should do something like this: if [ -e /usr/share/X11/xorg.conf.d/60-libinput.conf ] && \ dpkg -s xserver-xorg-input-synaptics >/dev/null 2>&1 && \ [ ! -e /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/90-libinput.conf ] then echo "Creating /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/90-libinput.conf to workaround xserver-xorg-input-synaptics" mkdir -p /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d ln -sf /usr/share/X11/xorg.conf.d/60-libinput.conf /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/90-libinput.conf fi And it should add a README.debian explaining that /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/90-libinput.conf can be replaced with an empty file if you want to let the synaptics driver to take precedence. The other solution is to add a "Conflicts: xserver-xorg-input-synaptics" but this is rather extreme. Although it is somewhat in line with the upstream views on the topic. The best solution would be to have gnome-control-center handle properly synaptics-managed touchpads but I don't think that upstream developers are very open to that idea given that they have dropped the support on purpose. What do you think? I also wonder what is the status of libinput support in other desktop environments. Do KDE/XFCE/LXDE/MATE/Cinnamon/... properly configure touchpads managed with the libinput driver? If not, then the removal of the synaptics driver is likely to negatively affect them. In any case, I would like to see this fixed soon as we have many users bitten by this (I got many reports on Kali) and I'm willing to help where needed. [1] Upstream tickets somewhat related: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=747956 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=764257 [2] https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2016-May/thread.html#49782 http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-xorg/driver/xserver-xorg-input-synaptics.git/commit/?id=ca44e3fbf8271712db94bf8f38e363f34b7e33af -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/
Re: RFS: intel-gpu-tools/1.15-1~bpo8+1
Hi Vincent, On 10 July 2016 at 23:27, Vincent Cheng wrote: > Hi Nicholas, > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Nicholas D Steeves > wrote: >> Dear X Strike Force, >> >> I am writing to you to request a sponsored upload for a backport of >> intel-gpu-tools, before seeking a general sponsor. I am working on >> bpos of libva and i965-va-driver for hardware enablement, and a newer >> intel-gpu-tools is a required build dependency. >> > > Erhmm, I don't think this is what you really intend to upload? Your > changelog entry above makes no sense for a diff that is 37k lines > long, so there's something obviously wrong with your package... I used git-buildpackage-0.6.22, and the full command used was: git-buildpackage --git-pbuilder --git-debian-branch=jessie-backports --git-dist=jessie-backports -v1.8-1 > $ debdiff stretch/intel-gpu-tools_1.15-1.dsc > bpo/intel-gpu-tools_1.15-1~bpo8+1.dsc | wc -l > 37220 Yes, now I see that too. Could it be a bug in the version of gbp I'm using, or did I make a mistake somewhere? Gianfranco, what do you think? Did I stumble into a common pitfall? > I've gone ahead and recreated your backported package as you probably > intended it to be (i.e. with the above changelog entry and the patch > you submitted in #829525; see attached 26-line debdiff), and uploaded > it to backports-NEW. As per backports rules, please ensure that you're > subscribed to the backports mailing list if you aren't already (for > the purpose of receiving backports-related bug reports). I assume > you've read all the other rules and are willing to maintain > intel-gpu-tools for jessie's lifespan. Thank you for the upload! Yes I am subscribed to the list, have read all the rules I've been able to find, and plan to maintain the backport. Cheers, Nicholas
Release of Mesa 12 for Debian Testing/Unstable
Hi, I just wanted to know when the packages of the version of Mesa (12.0.1) will arrive to the official repositories, i want to test out the new Vulkan driver. Is there a exact release date for Debian? Thanks in advance, Dylam.
