Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:37:26 -0400 From: Rob Clark <rclark@redhat.com> To: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> Cc: Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobrain@fedoraproject.org>, riastradh@netbsd.org, Stefan Dirsch <sndirsch@suse.de>, Andreas Radke <andyrtr@archlinux.org>, Jan de Groot <jgc@archlinux.org>, Jonathan Gray <jsg@jsg.id.au>, =?utf-8?B?RnJhbsOnb2lz?= Tigeot <ftigeot@wolfpond.org>, Matthew Green <mrg@netbsd.org>, =?utf-8?Q?Jean-S=C3=A9bastien_P=C3=A9dron?= <jean-sebastien.pedron@dumbbell.fr>, mesa@packages.debian.org, x11@freebsd.org, mesa-owner <mesa-owner@fedoraproject.org>, Adam Jackson <ajax@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] Embed the mesa version in the library/binary name Message-ID: <20150814233726.GD19762@mail.corp.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <CACvgo53QcLZFo5A2hiDjEaU=YSJ8SM8mqK_4h_yJMBs_yiOiQQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CACvgo50jzwFtE-md_nsZSmZJNqgqBsoA72o74x9LfhffYdqm1g@mail.gmail.com> <CAFMg4WB5XH5_pOaBQeTAkmBKqO_aPMcpmc1rC9758N%2BXQ6xwqg@mail.gmail.com> <20150814194753.GC19762@mail.corp.redhat.com> <CACvgo53QcLZFo5A2hiDjEaU=YSJ8SM8mqK_4h_yJMBs_yiOiQQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 14 2015 or thereabouts, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 14 August 2015 at 20:47, Rob Clark <rclark@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Aug 14 2015 or thereabouts, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > >> On Aug 14, 2015 6:21 PM, "Emil Velikov" <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > Hello all, > >> Hi, > >> > > >> > My name is Emil and I'm the person breaking^w fixing mesa's build > >> > amongst others. > >> Yes, we know :D > >> > > >> > A while back I had this idea of renaming the libraries provided by > >> > mesa to include the actual version number. Prior to doing anything > >> > "crazy" I've decided to seek your feedback. > >> > > >> > > >> > * What > >> > The idea is to rename (ideally) all of the versioned libraries. > >> > Unversioned ones such as radeonsi_dri.so will remain as is. > >> > > >> > Note: the soname and symlinks will stay to avoid breaking compatibility. > >> > > >> > > >> > * How > >> > While I haven't fully decided on the exact approach I'm thinking of > >> > something like: > >> > libGL.so.1.0.0 -> libGL.so.11.0 or libGL.so.110.1 or libGL.so.11.01 > >> I'd like to see 11.0 for 11.0, 11.1 for 11.1 and etc. > > > > Adam probably knows better, but I thought libGL.so/.1/ > These files are symlinks to the actual library and will not be renamed. > > >.1.2.0 as part of > > the linux/unix GL ABI? So not really sure that it is something we can > > actually change. > > > I'm fairly confident it's not part of the ABI. I've been through the > documentation five+ times, solely looking for it and did not see any > hints, let alone explicit statement. Not to mention that nvidia has > been using this approach since dawn of time. Even their oldest legacy > driver 71.x (one supporting Geforce 256) uses it. Ok, if it is just a matter of adding symlinks, and apps can still link against libGL.so or libGL.so.1 or whatever, it seems fine. And I guess if nv is doing it, then it is probably not non-compliant. Anyways, I'm defn not the expert in such things, but I think there is some expectation that apps can link against a driver agnostic shared lib path an expect things to work with other drivers.. (ofc having an icd seems like it would be a good thing, so hopefully libOpenGL actually happens some day) BR, -R > > > That said, with the libOpenGL stuff we could probably do something > > better. > > > That does not prevent us from doing minor tweaks :) > > Cheers, > Emil
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150814233726.GD19762>