[gentoo-dev] Mesa >=3.5 masked!?

[gentoo-dev] Mesa >=3.5 masked!?

[José Fonseca]

I noticed that Mesa >= 3.5 is masked but I don't understand why.

In package.mask says:

   #mesa 3.5 apparently breaks source compatibilty with 3.4.2 and we should
   #stay with 3.4.2 'cause so many apps depend on it.  (drobbins, 26 Jan 
2002)
   #sad but true, we're stuck at 3.4.2.
   #
   #think we should try mesa 4.0.1 sometime, although including glu in the 
xfree
   #ebuild seems to have good results.
   #azarah (29/01/2002)

I don't see how the first comment can be true as Mesa is an implementation 
of the OpenGL standard which, besides of source compatibility, also has 
binary compatibility within a platform. Mesa releases notes also don't 
mention nothing like that.

Regarding the second comment I found the referring bug number 245. It says 
that NVIDIA can't use the SGI libGLU.la 1.3 included in Mesa >=3.5. If so 
then why is the same SGI libGLU 1.3 available trhu the sgi-oss-glu ebuild? 
Stranger is that the "Nvidia OpenGL Configuration mini-HOWTO" 
(http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/mini/Nvidia-OpenGL-Configuration/) uses Mesa 
4.0.1 in the tutorial, but on the other hand the author does state that 
"not had time to test all the procedures"...

So it seems that there is quite a bit of misunderstanding. Is it mine or 
should I fill in a bug report?

José Fonseca

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mesa >=3.5 masked!?

[Martin Schlemmer]

On Mon, 2002-05-20 at 15:29, José Fonseca wrote:

> I don't see how the first comment can be true as Mesa is an implementation 
> of the OpenGL standard which, besides of source compatibility, also has 
> binary compatibility within a platform. Mesa releases notes also don't 
> mention nothing like that.
> 
> Regarding the second comment I found the referring bug number 245. It says 
> that NVIDIA can't use the SGI libGLU.la 1.3 included in Mesa >=3.5. If so 
> then why is the same SGI libGLU 1.3 available trhu the sgi-oss-glu ebuild? 
> Stranger is that the "Nvidia OpenGL Configuration mini-HOWTO" 
> (http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/mini/Nvidia-OpenGL-Configuration/) uses Mesa 
> 4.0.1 in the tutorial, but on the other hand the author does state that 
> "not had time to test all the procedures"...
> 
> So it seems that there is quite a bit of misunderstanding. Is it mine or 
> should I fill in a bug report?
> 

Point is ... experience shows that those included with xfree
works 99% of the time, if not 100%.  If you want to use
4.0.1, go for it ... you just get to keep the pieces.

-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mesa >=3.5 masked!?

[José Fonseca]

On 2002.05.20 22:14 Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-05-20 at 15:29, José Fonseca wrote:
> 
> > I don't see how the first comment can be true as Mesa is an
> implementation
> > of the OpenGL standard which, besides of source compatibility, also has
> 
> > binary compatibility within a platform. Mesa releases notes also don't
> > mention nothing like that.
> >
> > Regarding the second comment I found the referring bug number 245. It
> says
> > that NVIDIA can't use the SGI libGLU.la 1.3 included in Mesa >=3.5. If
> so
> > then why is the same SGI libGLU 1.3 available trhu the sgi-oss-glu
> ebuild?
> > Stranger is that the "Nvidia OpenGL Configuration mini-HOWTO"
> > (http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/mini/Nvidia-OpenGL-Configuration/) uses Mesa
> 
> > 4.0.1 in the tutorial, but on the other hand the author does state that
> 
> > "not had time to test all the procedures"...
> >
> > So it seems that there is quite a bit of misunderstanding. Is it mine
> or
> > should I fill in a bug report?
> >
> 
> Point is ... experience shows that those included with xfree
> works 99% of the time, if not 100%. If you want to use
> 4.0.1, go for it ... you just get to keep the pieces.

This doesn't address the question. If so then why is Mesa in Gentoo at 
all!? Since Gentoo distributes Mesa then there is no reason to not have 
Mesa 4.0.

If you think that Mesa itself is redundant and should be masked, ok - 
that's another option (just now I've been troubleshooting a Gentoo user 
which installed Mesa over X and DRI wasn't working) -, but the current 
nowhere-land situation makes no sense. Mesa-glu _is_ being used, only that 
is the 3.5 version - for no reason. And there have been quite some 
bugfixes since.

Bottom line, either Mesa is completely masked out or is completely 
unmasked, and the same goes for GLU. Keeping an older version for no 
reason makes no sense.


José Fonseca

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mesa >=3.5 masked!?

[Lars S. Jensen]

On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 00:32, José Fonseca wrote:
> On 2002.05.20 22:14 Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-05-20 at 15:29, José Fonseca wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't see how the first comment can be true as Mesa is an
> > implementation
> > > of the OpenGL standard which, besides of source compatibility, also has
> > 
> > > binary compatibility within a platform. Mesa releases notes also don't
> > > mention nothing like that.
> > >
> > > Regarding the second comment I found the referring bug number 245. It
> > says
> > > that NVIDIA can't use the SGI libGLU.la 1.3 included in Mesa >=3.5. If
> > so
> > > then why is the same SGI libGLU 1.3 available trhu the sgi-oss-glu
> > ebuild?
> > > Stranger is that the "Nvidia OpenGL Configuration mini-HOWTO"
> > > (http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/mini/Nvidia-OpenGL-Configuration/) uses Mesa
> > 
> > > 4.0.1 in the tutorial, but on the other hand the author does state that
> > 
> > > "not had time to test all the procedures"...
> > >
> > > So it seems that there is quite a bit of misunderstanding. Is it mine
> > or
> > > should I fill in a bug report?
> > >
> > 
> > Point is ... experience shows that those included with xfree
> > works 99% of the time, if not 100%. If you want to use
> > 4.0.1, go for it ... you just get to keep the pieces.
> 
> This doesn't address the question. If so then why is Mesa in Gentoo at 
> all!? Since Gentoo distributes Mesa then there is no reason to not have 
> Mesa 4.0.
Because Mesa was needed for OpenGL support before XFree version 4.2.0-rX
>From ebuild 4.1.0
#We're no longer including libGLU from here.  Packaged separately, from
separate sources.

OpenGL was an option at that time.

XFree use/is based on the Mesa 3.4.2:
#  Mesa updated to the post-3.4.2 3.4 branch version as of November
2001.

The lates Mesa is 4.0.2 but the ebuild is not 'up to date' missing
support for 'opengl-update' and it shall work with al

To make the ebiuld for Mesa-4.0.[12] you need to support 'opengl-update'
see /usr/portage/x11-base/xfree/files/4.2.0-r9/opengl-update 
, /usr/portage/x11-base/xfree/xfree-4.2.0-r9.ebuild 
and /usr/portage/media-video/nvidia-glx/nvidia-glx-1.0.2880.ebuild

And you may need to relink all programs/libs that use opengl if you get
MesaOS support included. 

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mesa >=3.5 masked!?

[José Fonseca]

On 2002.05.21 14:28 Lars S. Jensen wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 00:32, José Fonseca wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > This doesn't address the question. If so then why is Mesa in Gentoo at
> > all!? Since Gentoo distributes Mesa then there is no reason to not have
> > Mesa 4.0.
> Because Mesa was needed for OpenGL support before XFree version 4.2.0-rX
> >From ebuild 4.1.0
> #We're no longer including libGLU from here.  Packaged separately, from
> separate sources.
> 
> OpenGL was an option at that time.
> 

I see. I got the impression that libGLU was still necessary separately 
because there was no /usr/libGLU.so.

Looking into XFree-4.2.0-r9.ebuild I see that you link to 
/usr/libMesaGLU.so . Why is that? In principle every application should 
link to /usr/libGLU.so.

> XFree use/is based on the Mesa 3.4.2:
> #  Mesa updated to the post-3.4.2 3.4 branch version as of November
> 2001.
> 

Yes. The next XFree86 release will be based on Mesa 4.0 since that's what 
the current DRI CVS already has.

> The latest Mesa is 4.0.2 but the ebuild is not 'up to date' missing
> support for 'opengl-update' and it shall work with al
> 
> To make the ebiuld for Mesa-4.0.[12] you need to support 'opengl-update'
> see /usr/portage/x11-base/xfree/files/4.2.0-r9/opengl-update
> , /usr/portage/x11-base/xfree/xfree-4.2.0-r9.ebuild
> and /usr/portage/media-video/nvidia-glx/nvidia-glx-1.0.2880.ebuild
> 
> And you may need to relink all programs/libs that use opengl if you get
> MesaOS support included.

Thanks for the explanation. Making Mesa use the 'opengl-update' system 
seems a much better way indeed. But there's still the problem of GLU. It 
really shouldn't be included seperately by deprecated libraries providing 
"virtual/glut" , it should be managed by the 'opengl-update' script too.

GLUT is the only thing that is independent of the specific OpenGL 
implementation, being outside the scope of 'opengl-update'.

José Fonseca

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mesa >=3.5 masked!?

[José Fonseca]

My previous post had quite a deal of incorrections which I've corrected 
here.. more specifically its' /usr/lib/lib* and not /usr/lib*, and I meanr 
"virtual/glu" and not "virtual/glut"...

I'm sorry for the inconvenience..

On 2002.05.21 14:28 Lars S. Jensen wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 00:32, José Fonseca wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > This doesn't address the question. If so then why is Mesa in Gentoo at
> > all!? Since Gentoo distributes Mesa then there is no reason to not have
> > Mesa 4.0.
> Because Mesa was needed for OpenGL support before XFree version 4.2.0-rX
> >From ebuild 4.1.0
> #We're no longer including libGLU from here.  Packaged separately, from
> separate sources.
> 
> OpenGL was an option at that time.
> 

I see. I got the impression that libGLU was still necessary separately
because there was no /usr/lib/libGLU.so.

Looking into XFree-4.2.0-r9.ebuild I see that you link to
/usr/lib/libMesaGLU.so . Why is that? In principle every application should
link to /usr/lib/libGLU.so.

> XFree use/is based on the Mesa 3.4.2:
> #  Mesa updated to the post-3.4.2 3.4 branch version as of November
> 2001.
> 

Yes. The next XFree86 release will be based on Mesa 4.0 since that's what
the current DRI CVS already has.

> The latest Mesa is 4.0.2 but the ebuild is not 'up to date' missing
> support for 'opengl-update' and it shall work with al
> 
> To make the ebiuld for Mesa-4.0.[12] you need to support 'opengl-update'
> see /usr/portage/x11-base/xfree/files/4.2.0-r9/opengl-update
> , /usr/portage/x11-base/xfree/xfree-4.2.0-r9.ebuild
> and /usr/portage/media-video/nvidia-glx/nvidia-glx-1.0.2880.ebuild
> 
> And you may need to relink all programs/libs that use opengl if you get
> MesaOS support included.

Thanks for the explanation. Making Mesa use the 'opengl-update' system
seems a much better way indeed. But there's still the problem of GLU. It
really shouldn't be included seperately by deprecated libraries providing
"virtual/glu" , it should be managed by the 'opengl-update' script too.

GLUT is the only thing that is independent of the specific OpenGL
implementation, being outside the scope of 'opengl-update'.

José Fonseca

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mesa >=3.5 masked!?

[Martin Schlemmer]

On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 00:32, José Fonseca wrote:

> If you think that Mesa itself is redundant and should be masked, ok - 
> that's another option (just now I've been troubleshooting a Gentoo user 
> which installed Mesa over X and DRI wasn't working) -, but the current 
> nowhere-land situation makes no sense. Mesa-glu _is_ being used, only that 
> is the 3.5 version - for no reason. And there have been quite some 
> bugfixes since.
> 
> Bottom line, either Mesa is completely masked out or is completely 
> unmasked, and the same goes for GLU. Keeping an older version for no 
> reason makes no sense.
> 

Sorry for the late reply, but was MIA a bit.

True, we still have the mesa ebuilds, but the virtuals
should (virtual/glu) be satisfied by xfree.  Yes, I know
they all should be masked, but havent gotten to it, or
rather, im still sorda in limbo.

What installed Mesa over X?  If this happens, the ebuild
is broken, or somebody messed with the 
/usr/portage/profile/<foo>/virtuals .

Getting Mesa 4.0.x to work with opengl-update ... might
be a plan, but then I think we should drop the seperate
ebuilds, and only have mesa (not mesa, and mesa-glu).
How does 4.0.1 work with DRI currently ?  Last reports
I had, was that the ones (3.4.2 distributed with xfree)
still worked best in 99% of setups.  So basically ...
is there really a need for 4.0.1 ?


PS: CC me if you reply.

Greetings,

-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Mesa >=3.5 masked!?

[José Fonseca]

On 2002.05.21 22:51 Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 00:32, José Fonseca wrote:
> 
> > If you think that Mesa itself is redundant and should be masked, ok -
> > that's another option (just now I've been troubleshooting a Gentoo user
> 
> > which installed Mesa over X and DRI wasn't working) -, but the current
> > nowhere-land situation makes no sense. Mesa-glu _is_ being used, only
> that
> > is the 3.5 version - for no reason. And there have been quite some
> > bugfixes since.
> >
> > Bottom line, either Mesa is completely masked out or is completely
> > unmasked, and the same goes for GLU. Keeping an older version for no
> > reason makes no sense.
> >
> 
> Sorry for the late reply, but was MIA a bit.
> 
> True, we still have the mesa ebuilds, but the virtuals
> should (virtual/glu) be satisfied by xfree.  Yes, I know
> they all should be masked, but havent gotten to it, or
> rather, im still sorda in limbo.
> 
> What installed Mesa over X?  If this happens, the ebuild
> is broken, or somebody messed with the
> /usr/portage/profile/<foo>/virtuals .

I've checked the ebuild and both Mesa and XFree86 provide virtual/opengl, 
but even on my box (which just has XFree86) when making "emerge -p mesa" 
or "merge -p mesa-glu" emerge doesn't complaint. (My portage system it's 
not broken because runnin "emerge -p ?cron" does create a error..) So 
something must be wrong with the ebuilds... they should be blocking.

You can see the thread here: 
http://lists.gentoo.org/pipermail/gentoo-user/2002-May/023856.html .

> 
> Getting Mesa 4.0.x to work with opengl-update ... might
> be a plan, but then I think we should drop the seperate
> ebuilds, and only have mesa (not mesa, and mesa-glu).
> How does 4.0.1 work with DRI currently ?  Last reports

Mesa 4.0 was major step for driver architecture and performance, but this 
is completely transparent to the applications that use since they only 
interface with /usr/lib/libGL.so which is a dispatch lib. In XFree86 Mesa 
is actually embebed in every driver *_dri.so, and the software indirect 
render libGLcore.so.

The more important for applications with Mesa 4.0 is that it's conformant 
with OpenGL 1.3, so it should be also be next with a 1.3 compliant GLU.

> I had, was that the ones (3.4.2 distributed with xfree)
> still worked best in 99% of setups.  So basically ...
> is there really a need for 4.0.1 ?
> 

At least, for me there isn't. I was concerned with GLU, which wasn't on 
the right place (/usr/lib/ligGLU.so) so I thought it had be done via 
mesa-glu - which was old. Now I see that the solution is not install 
mesa-*, but use the XFree86's libGLU.so via the 'opengl-update' script 
too. This way we always keep the OpenGL implementations as a whole, and 
there won't be so much problems when XFree 4.3.0 is released.

Mesa might still be interesting for other people without X, but that is 
not really so important for now. (If you want help with the Mesa ebuilds I 
can help later on - now I'm on a tight schdule for a couple of weeks). 
What's important now is getting XFree86's OpenGL works out of the box.

In other words, IMHO:
  - libGLU should be managed by 'opengl-update'
  - it shouldn't be possible to install Mesa with X (at least, until it's 
managed by opengl-update too)
  - the nvidia OpenGL still needs a GLU, so the ebuild should compile Mesa 
3.4.x GLU - which seems to be the one that is expected by the drivers
  - sgi-glu should be dumped since it's not really necessary. It's the one 
used in Mesa 4.x, and will be used when the X uses it too.

> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Martin Schlemmer

Regards,

José Fonseca