Moving to Xorg 1.13 (ABI and dependencies)

Lekensteyn · 2012-09-20 10:21:54

Hi all,

I am trying to fully upgrade to Xorg 1.13. There are likely others who are interested in this as well, hence I am starting this topic.

There is already one commit that prepares the xorg-server package:
https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit … org-server

After this, all Xorg modules needs to be rebuilt, xf86-{video,input}-*.

Supposed to work after rebuild:
- xf86-input-evdev
- xf86-input-synaptics
- xf86-video-intel
- xf86-video-nouveau
- (not tested, but all xf86-video-* packages should work since the updates in fine http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-announce/2012-July/)

Supposed to work (without rebuilding):
- nvidia blob

Known issues:
- virtualbox guest additions do not work with xorg 1.13 (no upstream report yet, tested with Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal Live CD with latest Virtualbox 4.2)

To be checked:
- Does AMD Catalyst work with 1.13?

I had one question, how is the new ABI dependency thing supposed to work? If a package depends on X-ABI-XINPUT_VERSION=18.0, then future minor releases will break this which is in contradiction with the note in http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserve … 86Module.h:

* ABI versions. Each version has a major and minor revision. Modules
* using lower minor revisions must work with servers of a higher minor
* revision. There is no compatibility between different major revisions.

What do you think of providing X-ABI-XINPUT-18=18.0 in xorg-server so that all other packages can depend on X-ABI-XINPUT-18 and future packages on X-ABI-XINPUT-18>=18.0 if necessary?

Also, should the drivers depend on both X-ABI-{VIDEODRV,XINPUT}_VERSION and X-ABI-EXTENSION_VERSION, or is there something redundant on that?

Last edited by Lekensteyn (2012-09-20 10:29:05)

brebs · 2012-09-20 10:53:02

Lekensteyn wrote:

Supposed to work (without rebuilding):
- nvidia blob

That's bad, especially when you know there's an ABI change.

If there's any doubt, then rebuild.

Gusar · 2012-09-20 11:00:37

brebs wrote:

Lekensteyn wrote:
Supposed to work (without rebuilding):
- nvidia blob
That's bad, especially when you know there's an ABI change.
If there's any doubt, then rebuild.

Rebuilding won't do a thing when it comes to X compatibility, because the userspace parts are all blobs. Rebuilding only does something with the kernel module. That said, no rebuild necessary here, 304.43 supports ABI 13. Even earlier versions did, but there was a nasty bug that the 304.43 version fixes.

Lekensteyn · 2012-09-20 11:04:32

brebs wrote:

That's bad, especially when you know there's an ABI change.
If there's any doubt, then rebuild.

Just what Gusar said, rebuilding would only be useful if there was a kernel change. The nvidia_drv.so file is a blob, so rebuilding is basically repackaging here.

tomk · 2012-09-20 12:01:45

Call me lazy, but I'm happy to let the devs work this out, and drop it all into testing for me.

ngoonee · 2012-09-21 01:22:06

Lekensteyn wrote:

What do you think of providing X-ABI-XINPUT-18=18.0 in xorg-server so that all other packages can depend on X-ABI-XINPUT-18 and future packages on X-ABI-XINPUT-18>=18.0 if necessary?
Also, should the drivers depend on both X-ABI-{VIDEODRV,XINPUT}_VERSION and X-ABI-EXTENSION_VERSION, or is there something redundant on that?

Assuming you're talking about pacman's 'provides' and 'depends' list, these should never be used to directly link some sort of ABI.

Say 1.13 and 1.13.1 or whatever end up ABI incompatible with xf86-video-intel, the latter will just be rebuilt and made to depend on xorg>=1.13.1. Simple, and no need to define 'virtual' provides and depends.

tomk · 2012-09-21 05:54:12

ngoonee, you should have a look at the commit he linked to:

provides=('X-ABI-VIDEODRV_VERSION=13.0' 'X-ABI-XINPUT_VERSION=18.0' 'X-ABI-EXTENSION_VERSION=7.0' 'x-server')

ngoonee · 2012-09-21 06:14:29

tomk wrote:

ngoonee, you should have a look at the commit he linked to:
provides=('X-ABI-VIDEODRV_VERSION=13.0' 'X-ABI-XINPUT_VERSION=18.0' 'X-ABI-EXTENSION_VERSION=7.0' 'x-server')

I stand corrected then. Haven't seen anything of the sort done before, and don't really see the point in it myself (as mentioned above). Of course, as you mentioned I'm perfectly fine with the devs doing the implementational details so i don't have to

tomk · 2012-09-21 06:23:19

I was surprised too - maybe I should read arch-dev-public.

ngoonee · 2012-09-21 08:39:21

tomk wrote:

I was surprised too - maybe I should read arch-dev-public.

I DO read arch-dev-public and did not see any mention of this there (to be fair, it would only be mentioned once its in [testing] at least).

Lekensteyn · 2012-09-21 11:26:22

ngoonee wrote:

Say 1.13 and 1.13.1 or whatever end up ABI incompatible with xf86-video-intel, the latter will just be rebuilt and made to depend on xorg>=1.13.1. Simple, and no need to define 'virtual' provides and depends.

That is technically not fully correct. There could be a xorg 1.14 that has a different ABI thus breaking any updates. OTOH, it is also possible that 1.14 is fully ABI compatible. This is possibly the reason why the arch devs chose to do this. But I think it is wrong to depend on a minor version too.

I do not know the reasoning behind this, there was no post on the dev mailing list either. Is there a private mailing list where such things are discussed?

ConnorBehan · 2012-09-27 02:16:51

I think brebs was saying that the nvidia blob would have to be rebuilt *in principle*. Because nvidia doesn't have a magic future proof method of making sure that ABI bumps never break it. Not that any one of us could actually rebuild the userspace parts.

Lekensteyn · 2012-09-30 14:27:04

Finally some signals from the public-dev mailing list about this migration
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/ … 23678.html

Given that Mesa release is planned for 5 October (http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/m … 28089.html), I think that Xorg 1.13 will be available in 2-3 weeks (in testing at least).

Arch Linux

#1 2012-09-20 10:21:54

Moving to Xorg 1.13 (ABI and dependencies)

#2 2012-09-20 10:53:02

Re: Moving to Xorg 1.13 (ABI and dependencies)

#3 2012-09-20 11:00:37

Re: Moving to Xorg 1.13 (ABI and dependencies)

#4 2012-09-20 11:04:32

Re: Moving to Xorg 1.13 (ABI and dependencies)

#5 2012-09-20 12:01:45

Re: Moving to Xorg 1.13 (ABI and dependencies)

#6 2012-09-21 01:22:06

Re: Moving to Xorg 1.13 (ABI and dependencies)

#7 2012-09-21 05:54:12

Re: Moving to Xorg 1.13 (ABI and dependencies)

#8 2012-09-21 06:14:29

Re: Moving to Xorg 1.13 (ABI and dependencies)

#9 2012-09-21 06:23:19

Re: Moving to Xorg 1.13 (ABI and dependencies)

#10 2012-09-21 08:39:21

Re: Moving to Xorg 1.13 (ABI and dependencies)

#11 2012-09-21 11:26:22

Re: Moving to Xorg 1.13 (ABI and dependencies)

#12 2012-09-27 02:16:51

Re: Moving to Xorg 1.13 (ABI and dependencies)

#13 2012-09-30 14:27:04

Re: Moving to Xorg 1.13 (ABI and dependencies)

Board footer