directfb, fusionsound packaged, review for submition and sdl2 bridge

Juan Manuel Borges Caño juanmabcmail at gmail.com
Mon Jan 20 07:11:50 UTC 2014


Yeah, the packages as i built them, as i said, do not build the OPTIONAL
KERNEL MODULES, everything works anyway. Thanks, Ville Slytta, for the
insight in kernel module packaging in case at some point needs
consideration, again, NOT NOW as Ilyes Gouta repeats (and 1.7 is current).

If SDL2 IS DROPPING FBCON (their own framebuffer module) IN FAVOUR OF
DIRECTFB, Fedora is going to be a little behind if it does not ship it, and
would have to be rethinking this again and again. I find a real value in
being able to run some kind of quality graphical applications without the
OBLIGATORY dependency of an X Server. After all, X is not ALL, OpenGL is
not ALL. There are TONS of apps/games/utilities that can/could run on this.

I myself enjoy running stuff on the framebuffer, and like the possibility
of that option.

I'm having a little of a feeling about something i should pronunciate about
(NO DIRECT PERSONAL REFERENCE TO ANYONE): If you don't use the framebuffer,
you shouldn't be banning it, i would not ban the Xorg Server ;). If you use
X Desktop, Y Desktop users shouldn't be banning it (cause it's of no use TO
THEM). We are a ton of users, and if you don't like something, just don't
install it, if it doesn't work that way, just don't use it. It's not
OBLIGATORY to use it. :)

Again, not having FB support is gonna come back again and again. For
starters, i would be forced to keep my own DirectFB builds and hence SDL2
ones, since i use and plan on being usint it.

I wouldn't have thought that DirectFB requires such deep enrollment. I just
want to run stuff on the framebuffer. Possible DirectFB & FusionSound
maintainer(s), take note ;)


On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Ilyes Gouta <ilyes.gouta at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta at iki.fi>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Juan Manuel Borges Caño
>> <juanmabcmail at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The packages built okay without the optional kernel module (to know,
>> > linux-fusion is the one), if that turns to be obligatory, again, i'd
>> take
>> > alsa packaging as a cool example :)
>>
>> ALSA kernel modules are included in the upstream kernel, AFAIK
>> DirectFB ones are not. In order to be included in Fedora, they need to
>> be upstream or Fedora kernel maintainers convinced to ship them within
>> the kernel package.
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:KernelModules
>
>
> It should be possible to build DirectFB-multi without the linux-fusion
> kernel module, so that's reverting to shmem and UNIX sockets for IPC. I
> remember I saw fixes for Fusion userspace posted against the -1.7 branch.
>
> Ilyes
>
>
>>
>> --
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>>
>
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140120/8d9bffd3/attachment.html>


More information about the devel mailing list