1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.MAINT.X

  • Bug#870176: libdrm: Make source package bootstrappable

    From Daniel Schepler@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jul 30 22:30:02 2017
    XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist

    Source: libdrm
    Version: 2.4.82-1
    Severity: wishlist

    Currently, libdrm is involved in build dependency cycles such as:

    libdrm Build-Depends on valgrind
    valgrind Build-Depends on gdb
    gdb Build-Depends on texlive-base
    texlive-base Depends on texlive-binaries
    texlive-bin Build-Depends on libgd-dev
    libgd2 Build-Depends on libtiff-dev
    tiff Build-Depends on freeglut3-dev
    freeglut Build-Depends on libgl1-mesa-dev
    mesa Build-Depends on libdrm-dev

    As far as I can tell, it should be sufficient just to annotate the Build-Depends with "valgrind <!nocheck>".
    --
    Daniel Schepler

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sven Joachim@21:1/5 to Daniel Schepler on Sun Jul 30 23:00:01 2017
    XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist

    On 2017-07-30 12:17 -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote:

    Source: libdrm
    Version: 2.4.82-1
    Severity: wishlist

    Currently, libdrm is involved in build dependency cycles such as:

    libdrm Build-Depends on valgrind
    valgrind Build-Depends on gdb
    gdb Build-Depends on texlive-base
    texlive-base Depends on texlive-binaries
    texlive-bin Build-Depends on libgd-dev
    libgd2 Build-Depends on libtiff-dev
    tiff Build-Depends on freeglut3-dev
    freeglut Build-Depends on libgl1-mesa-dev
    mesa Build-Depends on libdrm-dev

    As far as I can tell, it should be sufficient just to annotate the Build-Depends with "valgrind <!nocheck>".

    Really? There seems to be quite a bit of code that's conditional to
    #ifdev HAVE_VALGRIND, e.g. in intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c, and I don't
    think building with the nocheck profile should alter the produced binary packages.

    Cheers,
    Sven

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Daniel Schepler@21:1/5 to Sven Joachim on Sun Jul 30 23:10:01 2017
    XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist

    On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> wrote:
    Really? There seems to be quite a bit of code that's conditional to
    #ifdev HAVE_VALGRIND, e.g. in intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c, and I don't
    think building with the nocheck profile should alter the produced binary packages.

    Hmm, I guess if it's indeed the case that it's generating valgrind
    support stub assembly, or something along those lines, then it might
    get more complex. It might be necessary to produce libdrm2-stage1
    etc. packages with shlibs/symbols set up to generate dependencies on
    "libdrm2 | libdrm2-stage1". Either that, or break the cycle somewhere
    else, for example maybe by having valgrind able to produce a
    valgrind-stage1 package without the correct gdb path encoded in.
    --
    Daniel

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)