Hi,
notes and actions from our Wednesday graphics working group call are
available on the wiki:
+ https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Middleware/Graphics/Notes/2011-02-02
Details about when and where of this meeting can be found here:
+ https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/Middleware/Graphics#Weekly%20Public%2…
Summary
=======
* Cairo GLES work progressing: one patchset accepted, one WIP patchset in review.
* New version of glmark2 (11.01) uploaded to natty universe.
* Investigation on qtwebkit traces ongoing.
* In contact with GLEW upstream to discuss GLES support.
* IRC connectivity issues for Samsung Bangalore assignees being worked on
by IT department using a clean-room approach.
Action Items
============
* Everyone to report access status for git.linaro.org.
* Jesse to ensure that we have valid conference call numbers for all
members of the gfx WG (in progress).
* Jesse to keep track of nux licensing issues.
* Everyone to send Jesse a list of the licenses of the projects they are
working on (both new and existing).
Thanks,
--
- Alexandros
Greetings,
Enclosed you'll find a link to the agenda, minutes and actions from the
Linaro kernel working group weekly meeting of Jan 31, 2011.
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/KernelConsolidation/Meetings/2011-01-…
=== Summary ===
* Rebased Linaro tree on 2.6.38-rc1.
* Device tree
* Have engineers on Samsung, Beagle, Panda, Tegra, Versatile Express and
handling backward compatibility for common devices.
The goal is to get device-tree turned on in most/all builds. Need
device-tree work for standard clock sources.
* Close to getting core device-tree patches into Nicolas's tree, but
fighting device-tree corruption bug on Versatile Express.
Also chasing down an issue that shows up only on qemu. Have a patch
that finesses clock sources by requiring a couple of device-tree APIs from
SoC-specific clock code, but which can be superseded by real clock support.
* Working to allow driver to retrieve device-specific information from
device tree in order to make progress while core device-tree code is being
refined.
The kernel must still be passed a full device tree, but this allows SoCs
to implement device tree incrementally as core device-tree support is put in
place. Mentor and Xylinx also contributing to device tree.
* Device tree support for Samsung platforms. Getting device-support
information from device tree. Will post device tree DTS file to ensure that
we all agree on format.
Grant suggests making DTS filename reflect platform, and also using
"include" facility to reduce duplication.
* Some clock work in progress for device tree. Locking issues being
addressed.
* Looking to upstreaming TI BSP, figuring out the best way to get all 2,000
patches upstream.
* Linaro Android kernel
* Now boots, pushed changes to Linaro git tree.
* Reviewing Andorid patches and looking to find minimal set of patches to
get Android UI running (ashven and binder).
* Pushing second chunk of clock-related patches up to -tip via Thomas
Gleixner.
* Suspend-blocker interaction with first chunk previously pushed will
require some application interaction, but this is all a bit speculative
given lack of suspend blockers in mainline.
* Working on uboot SPL for OMAP4, making a mini-uboot from uboot to replace
xloader. Making clock configuration independent of CPU frequency. Some
roadblocks in eMMC support -- excessive memory footprint.
* Chasing down tightened real-time checks, which cause failures when
forward porting TREE_RCU priority boosting to the 2.6.38 series.
Hello!
We have created a new linaro-kernel mailing list for kernel-specific
discussions. Of course, discussions that are of general interest should
continue on linaro-dev. The new linaro-kernel mailing list is open
to all comers, both inside and outside Linaro, and the archives are
publicly accessible. To join, please point your browser to the following:
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-kernel
Thanx, Paul
Hi,
The Linaro team is pleased to announce the availability of the 11.05
Alpha-2 images. These are still very early developer images but we
encourage all with supported hardware to use and test them by
downloading from:
http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/
Highlights of this release include:
* Added Gumstix Overo support.
* New Developer image including console base developer tools.
* Complete rewrite of the installation tools (linaro-image-tools)
to improve the user experience.
* A staggering 141 out of 160 packages have been upgraded since
Alpha-1.
The images consist of two parts. A hardware pack which can be found
under the ./hwpacks directory which contains hardware specific packages
such as the kernel and bootloader. The second part is the roofs which
is combined with the hardware pack to create a complete image. For
For information on how to create an image please see:
http://wiki.linaro.org/Releases/MilestoneBuilds
More information on Linaro in general and the 11.05 plans can be
found at:
* Homepage: http://www.linaro.org
* Wiki: http://wiki.linaro.org
* 11.05: http://wiki.linaro.org/Releases/1105
Also subscribe to the important Linaro mailing lists and join our IRC
channels to stay on top of Linaro developments:
* Announcements:
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-announce
* Development:
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
* IRC:
#linaro on irc.linaro.org or irc.freenode.net
For any errata issues please see:
http://wiki.linaro.org/Releases/1105/Alpha2#Issues
Bug reports for this release should be filed in Launchpad against the
individual packages that are affected, if a suitable package cannot be
identified, feel free to assign them to:
http://www.launchpad.net/linaro
Regards,
Jamie.
--
Linaro Release Manager
tcl8.5-dev contains /usr/lib/tcl8.5/tclConfig.sh
which is a symlink pointing to /usr/share/tcltk/tcl8.5/tclConfig.sh
Currently dpkg-cross only copies symlinks across when crossing a
package if the symlink points to somewhere within /lib. symlinks
outside /lib are ignored because they are not arch-dependent so
shouldn't need to be crossed.
The file /usr/lib/tcl8.5/tclConfig.sh is used by packages which build
extensions to tcl (such as sqlite), so that files does need to be
present.
The file is essentially a cache of the config options TCL was built
with so that extensions can make sure they match up. However it is not
arch-independent. e.g. Line 22 of that file is
TCL_CC='x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc' on the x86_64
version and TCL_CC='arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc' on the armel version.
Other options also differ between 32-bit and 64-bit arches for example.
So this file is arch-dependent in that it's different for each arch it
is built-on but arch-independent in that it's just a shell file.
Debian policy (8.2) says:
---------------
It is recommended that supporting files and run-time support programs
that do not need to be invoked manually by users, but are nevertheless
required for the package to function, be placed (if they are binary)
in a subdirectory of /usr/lib, preferably under /usr/lib/package-name.
If the program or file is architecture independent, the recommendation
is for it to be placed in a subdirectory of /usr/share instead,
preferably under /usr/share/package-name. Following the package-name
naming convention ensures that the file names change when the shared
object version changes.
Files and support programs only useful when compiling software against
the library should be included in the development package for the
library
---------------
A maintainer reading the above could reasonably decide that /usr/share
was the right place for this file, because the file itself (being just
shell) is arch-independent. The problem is that the contents are
arch-dependent. Policy is not at all clear on this distinction (It's
been making my head hurt all day). For multiarch, or existing
dpkg-cross cross-compiling, to work, arch-dependent needs to mean
either form _or_ content (see below for elaboration).
The original tcl build puts both tclConfig.sh and tcl.m4 in /usr/lib
but the debian packaging moves them to
/usr/share/tcltk/tcl8.5 and /usr/share/aclocal/ respectively
Currently the sqlite build fails because it looks for tclConfig.sh in
/usr/<triplet>/lib/tcl8.5/ and doesn't find it there, because
dpkg-cross didn't copy the symlink (or original) there.
So, the questions is - which of these is the correct fix:
1) make dpkg-cross copy over symlinks even when they point into
/usr/share
2) make tcl8.5 put tclConfig.sh in /usr/lib/tcl8.5 instead of
/usr/share/tcltk/tcl8.5
3) make sqlite (and similar packages) look in /usr/share/tcltk/tcl8.5
instead of /usr/lib/tcl8.5 when building
I note that the supplied tcl8.5.m4 file actually lists a whole pile of
possible locations for the file:
for i in `ls -d ${libdir} 2>/dev/null` \
`ls -d ${exec_prefix}/lib 2>/dev/null` \
`ls -d ${prefix}/lib 2>/dev/null` \
`ls -d /usr/local/lib 2>/dev/null` \
`ls -d /usr/contrib/lib 2>/dev/null` \
`ls -d /usr/share/tcltk/tk8.5 2>/dev/null` \
`ls -d /usr/lib 2>/dev/null` \
`ls -d /usr/lib64 2>/dev/null` \
However that list doesn't include anything ending in tcl8.5
(i.e /usr/<triplet>/lib/tcl8.5 or /usr/share/tcltk/tcl8.5) and perhaps
should by way of 'back-up plan', although I haven't actually looked
into the detals of how that is used.
Consideration when deciding how to fix this include:
Squeeze will be released in a few days with this broken so we will be
stuck with the /usr/share/ file location for some time there. Any fix
going into Ubuntu should make Natty easily enough.
For Multiarch tcl-dev will be a Multiarch:same package (i.e a
'library' package) (despite the name, it contains nothing but headers,
libraries and the above config.sh and m4 files), so the two different
tclConfig.sh files supplied by the DEB_BUILD_ARCH and DEB_HOST_ARCH
packages (when cross-building) will clash and the 2nd package will not
be installable. This, it seems to me, is the clinching argument that
the correct fix is to change the tcl build to put these files in
/usr/lib.
This also implies that policy 8.2 needs to be clarified to explain
what 'arch-independent' means.
Are there other situations which expect to find the tclConfig.sh file
in /usr/share? Is so those need considering.
Does anyone disgree with the above conclusions? And do people agree
that policy 8.2 could be clearer on this point?
I've filed a bug containing some of the above discussion and a patch
for tcl8.5. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=611650
Wookey
--
Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM
http://wookware.org/