Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1025056 > unrolled thread

Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches)

Started bySvante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>
First post2020-09-14 17:50 +0200
Last post2020-10-14 03:30 +0200
Articles 7 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches) Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> - 2020-09-14 17:50 +0200
    Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches) Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> - 2020-09-15 18:50 +0200
      Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches) Timo Aaltonen <tjaalton@debian.org> - 2020-09-15 23:00 +0200
        Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches) Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> - 2020-09-16 10:00 +0200
          Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches) Timo Aaltonen <tjaalton@debian.org> - 2020-09-16 16:20 +0200
            Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches) Svante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com> - 2020-09-16 16:40 +0200
    Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches) Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> - 2020-10-14 03:30 +0200

#1025056 — Bug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches)

FromSvante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>
Date2020-09-14 17:50 +0200
SubjectBug#909436: libdrm 2.4.102-1: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (updated patches)
Message-ID<AOYTT-3Ve-1@gated-at.bofh.it>

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

found 909436 2.4.102-1
thanks

Hello again,

libdrm still FTBFS on GNU/Hurd now due to bug #970304 and still missing
support for Hurd in drm.h and xf86drm.h. Attached is a patch, hurd-
port.diff, to fix this. The rest of that patch address PATH_MAX issues
in xf86dri.c as PATH_MAX is not defined for GNU/Hurd.

Note: hurd-port.diff depends on that xf86drm.c.diff in #970304 is
applied before!

Additionally the patches debian_rules.diff and debian_control.diff adds
Hurd to the architecture list.

Thanks!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1025214

FromSvante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>
Date2020-09-15 18:50 +0200
Message-ID<APmjw-1aB-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1025056
On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 20:52 +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
> On 14.9.2020 18.44, Svante Signell wrote:
> > found 909436 2.4.102-1
> > thanks
> > 
> > Hello again,
> > 
> > libdrm still FTBFS on GNU/Hurd now due to bug #970304 and still
> > missing support for Hurd in drm.h and xf86drm.h. Attached is a
> > patch, hurd-port.diff, to fix this. The rest of that patch address
> > PATH_MAX issuesin xf86dri.c as PATH_MAX is not defined for
> > GNU/Hurd.
> > 
> > Note: hurd-port.diff depends on that xf86drm.c.diff in #970304 is
> > applied before!
> 
> these would need to go upstream..

Both patches (somewhat modified) submitted upstream to the old issues:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/23
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/24

Thanks!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1025247

FromTimo Aaltonen <tjaalton@debian.org>
Date2020-09-15 23:00 +0200
Message-ID<APqds-3xN-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1025214
On 15.9.2020 19.50, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 20:52 +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
>> On 14.9.2020 18.44, Svante Signell wrote:
>>> found 909436 2.4.102-1
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> Hello again,
>>>
>>> libdrm still FTBFS on GNU/Hurd now due to bug #970304 and still
>>> missing support for Hurd in drm.h and xf86drm.h. Attached is a
>>> patch, hurd-port.diff, to fix this. The rest of that patch address
>>> PATH_MAX issuesin xf86dri.c as PATH_MAX is not defined for
>>> GNU/Hurd.
>>>
>>> Note: hurd-port.diff depends on that xf86drm.c.diff in #970304 is
>>> applied before!
>>
>> these would need to go upstream..
> 
> Both patches (somewhat modified) submitted upstream to the old issues:
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/23
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/24

thanks, but I'm afraid they don't get noticed unless they're sent as
merge-requests..


-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1025277

FromSvante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>
Date2020-09-16 10:00 +0200
Message-ID<APAw9-1lc-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1025247
On Tue, 2020-09-15 at 23:49 +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
> On 15.9.2020 19.50, Svante Signell wrote:
> > 
> > Both patches (somewhat modified) submitted upstream to the old
> > issues:
> > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/23
> > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/24
> 
> thanks, but I'm afraid they don't get noticed unless they're sent as
> merge-requests..

I don't know how to create a merge request. Maybe you can do that?
Alternately, what hinders you from applying the patches in Debian until
upstream responds?

Thanks!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1025324

FromTimo Aaltonen <tjaalton@debian.org>
Date2020-09-16 16:20 +0200
Message-ID<APGrT-5ak-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1025277
On 16.9.2020 10.53, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-09-15 at 23:49 +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
>> On 15.9.2020 19.50, Svante Signell wrote:
>>>
>>> Both patches (somewhat modified) submitted upstream to the old
>>> issues:
>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/23
>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/24
>>
>> thanks, but I'm afraid they don't get noticed unless they're sent as
>> merge-requests..
> 
> I don't know how to create a merge request. Maybe you can do that?
> Alternately, what hinders you from applying the patches in Debian until
> upstream responds?

It's gitlab, so merge-requests are done just like on salsa.


-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1025329

FromSvante Signell <svante.signell@gmail.com>
Date2020-09-16 16:40 +0200
Message-ID<APGLf-5gu-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1025324
On Wed, 2020-09-16 at 17:14 +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
> On 16.9.2020 10.53, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-09-15 at 23:49 +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote:
> > > On 15.9.2020 19.50, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > > Both patches (somewhat modified) submitted upstream to the old
> > > > issues:
> > > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/23
> > > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/issues/24
> > > 
> > > thanks, but I'm afraid they don't get noticed unless they're sent as
> > > merge-requests..
> > 
> > I don't know how to create a merge request. Maybe you can do that?
> > Alternately, what hinders you from applying the patches in Debian until
> > upstream responds?
> 
> It's gitlab, so merge-requests are done just like on salsa.

Sorry I don't have a salsa account, and never used gitlab on salsa. What about
applying the patches to librdm-2.4.102-2 until merge requests have been created,
either by you or me (after researching how to do a merge request).

Thanks!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1028533

FromSamuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>
Date2020-10-14 03:30 +0200
Message-ID<AZDM6-5Cg-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1025056
Hello,

Svante Signell, le lun. 14 sept. 2020 17:44:24 +0200, a ecrit:
> +#elif defined(__GNU__)
> +#include <mach/port.h>
> +#include <hurd/ioctl.h>
> +#define DRM_IOCTL_NR(n)         ((n) & 0xff)

Rather use _IOC_COMMAND, that'll fix it into taking 7 bits only, not 8.

Samuel

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web