Re: [RFC] OpenGL packaging/staging policy

[Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>]

On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 15:33 -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
> ...
> > Rule 1.  Unambiguous package naming
> >
> > Debian-style renaming and multiple providers of the same API doesn't
> > work as you'll end up with multiple packages in the same feed called
> > libgl1, so all GL packages should be named in the style of libgl-foo,
> > where foo is the source of the package.  I've got a branch where this
> > is implemented for Mesa as a proof of concept[1], and the Python
> > fragment could easily be moved into a class and re-used easily.
> 
> It would be nice to also have a common SoC arch so the binaries are
> clear not allarch but not rebuild for every board.
> 
> For example in iMX53 and iMX51 case they share same GL package set and
> we could have a armv7-imx5 or so common to all them so we'd not
> rebuild it for every board.

Surely in the case Ross describes, the "imx5" bit would be encoded into
the package name (i.e. they'd be libgl-imx5) and then PACKAGE_ARCH can
just be used as normal to represent the ISA and/or ABI.  I can't think
of any situation where encoding the GPU type into PACKAGE_ARCH would be
especially useful.

p.