Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chrome 94 Released With WebGPU For Testing, WebCodecs API Now Official

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    blacknova
    Senior Member

  • blacknova
    replied
    Originally posted by Sonadow View Post

    Isn't it clear?

    Most distributions ship libva with EGL and GLX enabled. The manual says that if libva is desired, it must first be built without EGL and GLX support. So a user must first create a libva build without EGL and GLX, overwritting the distrbution-provided libva. This is the first build of libva, to be made against the existing Mesa version.

    Next, the updated version of Mesa must be built and installed.

    Finally, libva must be built again, this time against the updated Mesa and with EGL and GLX support enabled, to overwrite the first build of libva sans EGL and GLX support. This clearly is a complete rebuild of libva.

    And since there is no guarantee that other applications or libraries that are built against the original distribution-provided libva will still work against the rebuilt libva, the only real assurance is to rebuild them against this rebuilt libva. The LFS manual even states this clearly in the libva section: https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blf...ver.html#libva



    This is way too much effort for too little payoff.
    ABI is not broken with mesa update, it just means that if you installed libva before mesa, to get GLX and EGL support you'd need to rebuild it. It just one of complications of living with source-based distro. No package based distro I know update libva with each mesa update.

    Leave a comment:

  • perpetually high
    Senior Member

  • perpetually high
    replied
    Wouldn't doubt for a second if birdie and Sonadow are the same person. Maybe even debianxfce, too.

    You guys are so sad. It's honestly beneath me to go back and forth with two pathetic losers on Michael's website, so I won't do it. Have a good one.

    Leave a comment:

  • Sonadow
    Senior Member

  • Sonadow
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post

    Oh, god, I tried to play around with your nickname for Christ's sake. Why are you so salty?? Again, please stop quoting me. You've now insulted me three times for no effing reasons.
    Unfortunately, people intoxicated to the point where they are always high in the clouds are usually incapable of seeing the ground even when their faces are smashed against it.

    Leave a comment:

  • birdie
    Senior Member

  • birdie
    replied
    Originally posted by perpetually high View Post

    Oh, is that right? I asked a legitimate question and you answered with "Living sober is not that bad."

    Probably upset the pothead is smarter than you. I'd be upset, too.

    Take care. Won't humor you anymore or acknowledge your existence, bud bud.
    Oh, god, I tried to play around with your nickname for Christ's sake. Why are you so salty?? Again, please stop quoting me. You've now insulted me three times for no effing reasons.

    Leave a comment:

  • perpetually high
    Senior Member

  • perpetually high
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post

    I don't understand the insults, I gave you the correct answer. Yeah, really, stop quoting me as well, thank you very much.

    Speaking of "no one respects me online" - maybe it's just you and some rabid open source fans.
    Oh, is that right? I asked a legitimate question and you answered with "Living sober is not that bad."

    Probably upset the pothead is smarter than you. I'd be upset, too.

    Take care. Won't humor you anymore or acknowledge your existence, bud bud.

    Leave a comment:

  • birdie
    Senior Member

  • birdie
    replied
    Originally posted by perpetually high View Post

    You're an absolute prick. And to think, I was thinking to myself "Man, birdie has been posting awesome shit lately."

    Loser in life and not a single soul respects you online. Try way harder and never quote me again. Not interested in anything you have to say.
    I don't understand the insults, I gave you the correct answer. Yeah, really, stop quoting me as well, thank you very much.

    Speaking of "no one respects me online" - maybe it's just you and some rabid open source fans.

    Leave a comment:

  • birdie
    Senior Member

  • birdie
    replied
    Does anyone here have an actual brain? The fact that Firefox has workarounds means there are websites which work properly in Chrome but don't work in Firefox. Oh, god.

    Leave a comment:

  • Sonadow
    Senior Member

  • Sonadow
    replied
    Originally posted by intelfx View Post

    Where did you find this "fact"? It does not follow from the manual you quoted.
    Isn't it clear?

    Most distributions ship libva with EGL and GLX enabled. The manual says that if libva is desired, it must first be built without EGL and GLX support. So a user must first create a libva build without EGL and GLX, overwritting the distrbution-provided libva. This is the first build of libva, to be made against the existing Mesa version.

    Next, the updated version of Mesa must be built and installed.

    Finally, libva must be built again, this time against the updated Mesa and with EGL and GLX support enabled, to overwrite the first build of libva sans EGL and GLX support. This clearly is a complete rebuild of libva.

    And since there is no guarantee that other applications or libraries that are built against the original distribution-provided libva will still work against the rebuilt libva, the only real assurance is to rebuild them against this rebuilt libva. The LFS manual even states this clearly in the libva section: https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blf...ver.html#libva

    Originally posted by Linux From Scratch
    If you are reinstalling this package, you will need to remove the older versions of the libraries. These are in the form of libva*.so.1 and any symbolic links pointing to them. In addition, any packages that use these files need to be rebuilt.
    This is way too much effort for too little payoff.
    Sonadow
    Senior Member
    Last edited by Sonadow; 22 September 2021, 02:47 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • intelfx
    Senior Member

  • intelfx
    replied
    Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
    The fact that libva needs to be rebuilt after a change to Mesa <...>
    Where did you find this "fact"? It does not follow from the manual you quoted.

    Leave a comment:

  • Sonadow
    Senior Member

  • Sonadow
    replied
    Originally posted by intelfx View Post

    Well, I wanted you to prove the claim itself, not the mere fact that LFS claims something.



    But anyway. You seem to be misreading the manual. It simply says that there is a circular dependency, not that "if Mesa is updated, VAAPI and VDPAU and every other library or application that depends on them need to be recompiled as well".

    Circular dependencies do not imply any sort of API/ABI instability.
    .
    The fact that libva needs to be rebuilt after a change to Mesa already means that there is no guarantee that libva will continue to call Mesa normally without any breakage or issues. So any library or application that is already built against libva can also no longer guarantee that they won't break when calling the unmodified libva which in turn calls the modified Mesa.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X