Eric Anholt announced the availability of a new tool on the xorg mailinglist, intel-gpu-tools-1.0. an ebuild for it and a make-it-compile-cleaner-patch is attached. the license GPL-2 was _ASSUMED_, i did not find a statement from the developer. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
Created attachment 189710 [details] initial ebuild for intel-gpu-tools-1.0
Created attachment 189711 [details, diff] patch required for initial ebuild for intel-gpu-tools-1.0
Created attachment 189723 [details, diff] this version fixes all warnings
X11 herd, this package sounds promissing. I ll CC you . If you are not interested please feel free to remove that alias :)
I was going to get to it someday... ;) Thanks
Oh and btw, I think this tool will stay in the x11 overlay for a little while as it's really young. Please forward all patches to FreeDesktop's bugzilla so upstream can apply them in git. Thanks
Reporter: some notes about your ebuild. The warnings-patch: It's always nice to fix warnings, but as none of them is in any way critical, this is best sent to the upstream developers. Your license is wrong (it's x11-code, rarely ever licensed under GPL), empty depend for libraries the files link against is wrong. You don't use make install, instead dobin manually. Beside, we have an eclass for x code (see other x ebuilds as examples). I'll upload a cleaned up ebuild in a minute.
Created attachment 192058 [details] intel-gpu-tools-1.0.1.ebuild
(In reply to comment #7) > Reporter: some notes about your ebuild. > > The warnings-patch: It's always nice to fix warnings, but as none of them is in > any way critical, this is best sent to the upstream developers. > > Your license is wrong (it's x11-code, rarely ever licensed under GPL), empty > depend for libraries the files link against is wrong. You don't use make > install, instead dobin manually. Beside, we have an eclass for x code (see > other x ebuilds as examples). > > I'll upload a cleaned up ebuild in a minute. > thanks for the comments. i'll send the patch upstream. of course that's nothing critical, just cosmetic. i didn't realize that the x-modular eclass fits in this case. you did not declare any license in your ebuild, was that intended?
(In reply to comment #9) > thanks for the comments. Yep, thanks Hanno :) > i'll send the patch upstream. of course that's nothing critical, just cosmetic. If you take a look at the 3 patches that I've gotten accepted into xf86-video-intel, you'll see they are hardly more than cosmetic ;) > i didn't realize that the x-modular eclass fits in this case. > you did not declare any license in your ebuild, was that intended? I'll do a few comments of my own :) 1) The x-modular eclass defines LICENSE to ${PN} because a lot of the various X apps have different license (they're all the same in spirit, MIT-X11 like, but with different wording... bleh). [1] 2) The ebuild should follow the versions currently defined in configure.ac. 3) There's 1.0.1 available So ack on the ebuild with the above changes. Again, I'll get to it as soon as I can, but anyone feel free to commit this to portage with metadata.xml pointing to x11 as maintainers. Thanks to all :) [1] http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/intel-gpu-tools/tree/lib/drmtest.c
in portage. Thanks for the ebuild :)
