[gentoo-user] Re: mesa build failure

[gentoo-user] Re: mesa build failure

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 06/28/2009 12:20 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> As far as the bug report went it just didn't click for me.
> Disappointing that after something like 10 months no one has fixed the
> ebuild.

The latter ebuilds are fixed.  They're still ~arch, but I recommend you 
use them because the latter driver versions are substantially less buggy 
than the arch ones.  If you have a older card (anything less or equal to 
a Radeon X1950) use ati-drivers-8.593. If you a Radeon HD2000 and above, 
use ati-drivers-9.6.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: mesa build failure

[Mark Knecht]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Nikos Chantziaras<realnc@arcor.de> wrote:
> On 06/28/2009 12:20 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>> As far as the bug report went it just didn't click for me.
>> Disappointing that after something like 10 months no one has fixed the
>> ebuild.
>
> The latter ebuilds are fixed.  They're still ~arch, but I recommend you use
> them because the latter driver versions are substantially less buggy than
> the arch ones.  If you have a older card (anything less or equal to a Radeon
> X1950) use ati-drivers-8.593. If you a Radeon HD2000 and above, use
> ati-drivers-9.6.
>

Nikos,
   Thanks for responding. I apprecaite it.

~arch on xf86-video-ati, xorg-server or both? I prefer to stay with
non-~arch when possible.

I've got a 9100 IGP which is listed as R200 technology. I need to use
the TV Out S-Video on my machine but cannot find very good
instructions on creating the right xorg.conf file.

Thanks,
Mark

[gentoo-user] Re: mesa build failure

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 06/28/2009 01:30 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Nikos Chantziaras<realnc@arcor.de>  wrote:
>> On 06/28/2009 12:20 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>> As far as the bug report went it just didn't click for me.
>>> Disappointing that after something like 10 months no one has fixed the
>>> ebuild.
>> The latter ebuilds are fixed.  They're still ~arch, but I recommend you use
>> them because the latter driver versions are substantially less buggy than
>> the arch ones.  If you have a older card (anything less or equal to a Radeon
>> X1950) use ati-drivers-8.593. If you a Radeon HD2000 and above, use
>> ati-drivers-9.6.
>>
>
> Nikos,
>     Thanks for responding. I apprecaite it.
>
> ~arch on xf86-video-ati, xorg-server or both? I prefer to stay with
> non-~arch when possible.
>
> I've got a 9100 IGP which is listed as R200 technology. I need to use
> the TV Out S-Video on my machine but cannot find very good
> instructions on creating the right xorg.conf file.

No wait, you were talking about xf86-video-ati, not ati-drivers.  Please 
ignore :P  Sorry.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: mesa build failure

[Mark Knecht]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Nikos Chantziaras<realnc@arcor.de> wrote:
> On 06/28/2009 01:30 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Nikos Chantziaras<realnc@arcor.de>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/28/2009 12:20 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As far as the bug report went it just didn't click for me.
>>>> Disappointing that after something like 10 months no one has fixed the
>>>> ebuild.
>>>
>>> The latter ebuilds are fixed.  They're still ~arch, but I recommend you
>>> use
>>> them because the latter driver versions are substantially less buggy than
>>> the arch ones.  If you have a older card (anything less or equal to a
>>> Radeon
>>> X1950) use ati-drivers-8.593. If you a Radeon HD2000 and above, use
>>> ati-drivers-9.6.
>>>
>>
>> Nikos,
>>    Thanks for responding. I apprecaite it.
>>
>> ~arch on xf86-video-ati, xorg-server or both? I prefer to stay with
>> non-~arch when possible.
>>
>> I've got a 9100 IGP which is listed as R200 technology. I need to use
>> the TV Out S-Video on my machine but cannot find very good
>> instructions on creating the right xorg.conf file.
>
> No wait, you were talking about xf86-video-ati, not ati-drivers.  Please
> ignore :P  Sorry.
>

OK - no problem. Sorry for any confusion.

Cheers,
Mark

[gentoo-user] mesa build failure

[Walter Dnes]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 397 bytes --]

  I'm running 32-bit Gentoo.  mesa is the last remaining package in the
current emerge update.  Just in case, I tried...

MAKEOPTS="-j1" emerge --changed-use --deep --update @world

  That did not help.  Attached are the build log and output of

emerge --info '=media-libs/mesa-17.1.8::gentoo'

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

[-- Attachment #2: eminfo.txt.gz --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 2730 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: mesalog.txt.gz --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 40740 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] mesa build failure

[Alan McKinnon]

On 27/11/2017 20:18, Walter Dnes wrote:
>   I'm running 32-bit Gentoo.  mesa is the last remaining package in the
> current emerge update.  Just in case, I tried...
> 
> MAKEOPTS="-j1" emerge --changed-use --deep --update @world
> 
>   That did not help.  Attached are the build log and output of
> 
> emerge --info '=media-libs/mesa-17.1.8::gentoo'
> 

This is your build error:

/var/tmp/portage/media-libs/mesa-17.1.8/work/mesa-17.1.8/src/mesa/swrast/s_aatritemp.h:
In function 'rgba_aa_tri':
/var/tmp/portage/media-libs/mesa-17.1.8/work/mesa-17.1.8/src/mesa/swrast/s_aatritemp.h:196:57:
error: implicit declaration of function 'omp_get_thread_num'
[-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
          span.array = SWRAST_CONTEXT(ctx)->SpanArrays +
omp_get_thread_num();

IIRC openmp provides that function. But his:


cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
make[5]: *** [Makefile:2946: swrast/s_aatriangle.lo] Error 1
make[5]: Leaving directory
'/var/tmp/portage/media-libs/mesa-17.1.8/work/mesa-17.1.8-abi_x86_32.x86/src/mesa'


mesa has 18 versions in-tree and mesa-17.1.8 is the second oldest. Any
special reason you are stuck so far back? A package.mask you no longr
actually need maybe? My first action would be to use something more
rcent that functions for yu.

Alan


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

[gentoo-user] Re: mesa build failure

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2017-11-27 21:07, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> mesa has 18 versions in-tree and mesa-17.1.8 is the second oldest. Any
> special reason you are stuck so far back? A package.mask you no longr
> actually need maybe?

All the later ones are ~arch ?

-- 
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet, fetch the TXT record for the domain.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: mesa build failure

[Alan McKinnon]

On 27/11/2017 21:59, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2017-11-27 21:07, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> 
>> mesa has 18 versions in-tree and mesa-17.1.8 is the second oldest. Any
>> special reason you are stuck so far back? A package.mask you no longr
>> actually need maybe?
> 
> All the later ones are ~arch ?
> 

what I typed is incomplete, sorry about that:

mesa-17.1.8 is the second oldest ~arch version


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: mesa build failure

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:52:05PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
> On 27/11/2017 21:59, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> > On 2017-11-27 21:07, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > 
> >> mesa has 18 versions in-tree and mesa-17.1.8 is the second oldest. Any
> >> special reason you are stuck so far back? A package.mask you no longr
> >> actually need maybe?
> > 
> > All the later ones are ~arch ?
> > 
> 
> what I typed is incomplete, sorry about that:
> 
> mesa-17.1.8 is the second oldest ~arch version

  I just noticed something interesting. 13.0.5 and 17.0.6 are stable for
both x86 and amd64.  17.1.8 is stable for x86 (this machine), but not
for amd64.

  I wonder if I should simply remove "-fopenmp" from flags in make.conf.
It's been causing problems for python as well as for mesa.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications