https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #2 from František Zatloukal fzatlouk@redhat.com --- SPEC: https://gist.github.com/frantisekz/2b8070d039b4a14498e61cf16c6c3511

I've taken it off copr for now, until we figure out what needs to be stripped from source tarball.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

František Zatloukal fzatlouk@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2036099

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036099 [Bug 2036099] Review Request: intel-opencl-igc - Intel(R) Graphics Compiler for OpenCL(TM)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

František Zatloukal fzatlouk@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On|2036098, 2036104 |2036135, 2036109

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036098 [Bug 2036098] Review Request: intel-opencl-clang - Library to compile OpenCL C kernels to SPIR-V modules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036104 [Bug 2036104] Review Request: llvm8.0 - The Low Level Virtual Machine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036109 [Bug 2036109] Review Request: intel-cm-compiler - Intel(R) C for Metal compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036135 [Bug 2036135] Review Request: intel-compute-runtime - Compute API support for Intel(R) graphics

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dominik@greysector.net

--- Comment #4 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- Doesn't this need FE-Legal review, then?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m)

--- Comment #6 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- FWIW, the driver from your COPR is working for me (Intel 11th gen/Tiger Lake) well enough to play some videos using mpv with VAAPI hwaccel, which is really great. And with Firefox 96, VAAPI accelerated video playback is no longer crashing, either.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #8 from František Zatloukal fzatlouk@redhat.com --- SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frantisekz/intel-media-dr...

SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frantisekz/intel-media-dr...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

Martin Stransky stransky@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |stransky@redhat.com

--- Comment #9 from Martin Stransky stransky@redhat.com --- Love to see that, Thanks!

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132 Bug 1942132 depends on bug 2036099, which changed state.

Bug 2036099 Summary: Review Request: intel-igc - Intel(R) Graphics Compiler for OpenCL(TM) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036099

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #11 from Robert Mader robert.mader@posteo.de --- Just for understanding: would it still be possible to request this to be part of a default setup? Or would that need to wait for Fedora 36?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #13 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com ---

# Original source has non-free and/or patented files, use strip.py on original source!

Where is strip.py

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #15 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- Has there been any progress on this package? I've upgraded one of my machines to F36 and I'm able to test this on hardware supported by intel-media-driver only (Intel Tiger Lake).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #17 from František Zatloukal fzatlouk@redhat.com --- SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frantisekz/intel-media-dr...

SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frantisekz/intel-media-dr...

strip.py: https://gist.github.com/frantisekz/137f3d213ec6392b51def31255456f78

Patch to remove non-free codecs support entirely: https://gist.github.com/frantisekz/4932cf5b5b304163268c6c7386f61d0b

This should(tm) be ready for legal and package review. THe driver is very barebones as we're currently skipping kernel compilation entirely ( https://github.com/intel/media-driver/issues/1356 ).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #18 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com ---

# This is an Intel only vaapi backend ExclusiveArch: i686 x86_64

With Intel Arc GPUs now a thing, is this really x86-only now? You could use it with ARM or POWER based systems too...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #20 from František Zatloukal fzatlouk@redhat.com --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #18)

...

# This is an Intel only vaapi backend ExclusiveArch: i686 x86_64

With Intel Arc GPUs now a thing, is this really x86-only now? You could use it with ARM or POWER based systems too...

The problem is this: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/intel-gmmlib/blob/rawhide/f/intel-gmmlib....

Also, once the time comes to enable free kernels compilation, that'd require bunch of igc, cm, compute-runtime stuff (or leave the kernels off for non-x86 forever). We can get this in in x86 only and figure path forward later on. I remember I'd problems with bunch of Intel stuff regressing pretty often on non-x86 compared to x86 in the past.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #22 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: intel-media-driver.spec should be intel-media-driver-free.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/ngompa/1942132-intel-media-driver/srpm- unpacked/intel-media-driver.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.

Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3

intel-media-driver-free.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 21.4.3-1 ['22.6.0-1.fc38', '22.6.0-1'] intel-media-driver-free.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libigfxcmrt.so 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.5 s

Unversioned so-files -------------------- intel-media-driver-free: /usr/lib64/dri/iHD_drv_video.so intel-media-driver-free: /usr/lib64/libigfxcmrt.so

Requires -------- intel-media-driver-free (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libigdgmm.so.12()(64bit) libigfxcmrt.so.7()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libva.so.2()(64bit) libva.so.2(VA_API_0.33.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

intel-media-driver-free-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

intel-media-driver-free-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides -------- intel-media-driver-free: intel-media-driver-free intel-media-driver-free(x86-64) libigfxcmrt.so.7()(64bit) metainfo() metainfo(intel-media-driver.metainfo.xml)

intel-media-driver-free-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) intel-media-driver-free-debuginfo intel-media-driver-free-debuginfo(x86-64) libigfxcmrt.so.7.2.0-22.6.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

intel-media-driver-free-debugsource: intel-media-driver-free-debugsource intel-media-driver-free-debugsource(x86-64)

Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1942132 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, PHP, Perl, R, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #24 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #23)

Provides

intel-media-driver-free: [...] libigfxcmrt.so.7()(64bit)

Why this library is provided within intel-media-driver-free ?

It is part of the driver, but I agree, this needs to be subpackaged out. The development headers and pkgconfig files should also be shipped in a devel package.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #26 from František Zatloukal fzatlouk@redhat.com --- SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frantisekz/intel-media-dr...

SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frantisekz/intel-media-dr...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #28 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5227768 (succeeded)

Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...

Please take a look if any issues were found.

--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #30 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #29)

Please fix the conflicting issue with the full featured. (likely to requires patching libva, but looks saner than the mesa nightmare currently occurring).

Well, the -free/-full split is an upstream intel-media-driver thing, not a libva thing.

I've filed a ticket to ask for this: https://github.com/intel/media-driver/issues/1598

But I won't hold up this package on that unless I get an assertion that it'd happen reasonably quickly.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #32 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com ---

%{_libdir}/libigfxcmrt.so*

Why isn't the regular shared library split out into a subpackage rather than being in the devel subpackage? It doesn't belong in the main driver package, sure, but it also doesn't belong in the devel subpackage either.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #34 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1949453 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1949453&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5227768 to 5620209

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #36 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwizart@gmail.com --- I don't get why there is a libigfxcmrt sub-package out of this project. Is this used by some other component ?

My understanding is that library is a fork of this project: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2114125

Now if intel-media-driver is the only user of the library, I don't get the problem to have it bundled at all. It will avoid the need of any ABI computation.

Also it will ease the swap between the full featured and

Until a solution is found WRT alternative version (https://github.com/intel/libva/issues/639 ), I would be okay to have a downstream patch with the iHD-free driver name added into libva. Please rename as appropriate.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #38 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to František Zatloukal from comment #37)

...

Until a solution is found WRT alternative version (https://github.com/intel/libva/issues/639 ), I would be okay to have a downstream patch with the iHD-free driver name added into libva. Please rename as appropriate.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind, thanks (this is nowhere near legal ack yet afaik)!

I don't believe this is an acceptable route to fix this problem. We should test the environment.d solution before we do that.

Upstream advises against patching the binary filename.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #40 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #38)

I don't believe this is an acceptable route to fix this problem. We should test the environment.d solution before we do that.

environment.d doesn't work in MATE, for example (i.e. nothing imports environment from systemd like GNOME or KDE does).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #42 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Also a new version just came out, can you update to that?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #44 from František Zatloukal fzatlouk@redhat.com --- SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frantisekz/intel-media-dr...

SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frantisekz/intel-media-dr...

Added strip.py .

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #46 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1953231 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1953231&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5700638 to 5700735

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #48 from František Zatloukal fzatlouk@redhat.com --- SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frantisekz/intel-media-dr...

SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frantisekz/intel-media-dr...

GEN10 iGPU support enabled.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #50 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1953430 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1953430&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5700735 to 5706040

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(fzatlouk@redhat.c | |om)

--- Comment #52 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- One last nitpick: ... -DVC1_Decode_Supported="no" \ -DAVC_Encode_VME_Supported="no" \ -DAVC_Encode_VDEnc_Supported="no" \ -DHEVC_Encode_VME_Supported="no" \ -DHEVC_Encode_VDEnc_Supported="no" \ -DAVC_Decode_Supported="no" \ -DHEVC_Decode_Supported="no" \ -DAVC_Decode_Supported="no" \ ... Could you sort these alphabetically?

Also, could you post a message on legal mailing list to ask Fedora Legal folks about the status of their review of this code?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #54 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- (In reply to František Zatloukal from comment #53)

...

Could you sort these alphabetically?

Sure sure, will do when I get to next round of rebasing to a later upstream release next week.

Thanks.

...

Also, could you post a message on legal mailing list to ask Fedora Legal folks about the status of their review of this code?

I am not sure that'd help/is desired? There has been a discussion started a few months ago internally with our senior legal people.

No need, then. It's enough to know that evaluation is in progress.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #56 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwizart@gmail.com --- Why using the old vaapi naming scheme across the distro, for newer packages ? newer naming schema is more like having vaapi-driver in the name.

Guideline is pretty clear on that the package name is derived from the source tarball! What justify that such guideline is arbitrary ignored ?

Now one can add any virtual provides that make things fit!

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

Joshua Strobl joshua@buddiesofbudgie.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |joshua@buddiesofbudgie.org

--- Comment #57 from Joshua Strobl joshua@buddiesofbudgie.org --- What is the status of this task? Is over 5 months the usual pace for legal to review this? Or is there an actual need to move this to the ML to ensure the discussion and topic does not get buried?

intel-media-driver-free is used for hardware-accelerated AV1 encode and decode, for example on Intel Arc DG2. OBS Studio nowadays supports AV1-based streaming to supported platforms (YouTube currently) as well as local recording and in the case of ffmpeg, the pieces have fallen into place and should be around in the next release of ffmpeg. Soon enough, this will be the bottleneck, and I'd really like to see Fedora remain a viable platform for video-oriented content creators.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mattdm@redhat.com Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) |

--- Comment #59 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- I'm lifting FE-Legal on this bug. We have been waiting for over a year on it, and I firmly believe we've done sufficient diligence on this front.

I've also filed a Fedora Council ticket about the problems with FE-Legal: https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/471

František, can you please implement my feedback as mentioned in comment 55? Once that's done and the driver is revved to the latest version released two weeks ago, I will approve this for inclusion.

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

František Zatloukal fzatlouk@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(fzatlouk@redhat.c | |om) |

--- Comment #60 from František Zatloukal fzatlouk@redhat.com --- SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frantisekz/intel-media-dr...

SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frantisekz/intel-media-dr...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #62 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwizart@gmail.com --- libigfxcmrt is still built as a separate shared object, but as such, this is a dead project: https://github.com/intel/cmrt

Please remove this sub-package unless you can point to any users ?

Also according to version numbers in 23.4 is pre-release software (might need any ABI breaking update). please only import in rawhide for now.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #64 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwizart@gmail.com --- (In reply to František Zatloukal from comment #63)

(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #62)

...

libigfxcmrt is still built as a separate shared object, but as such, this is a dead project: https://github.com/intel/cmrt

Please remove this sub-package unless you can point to any users ?

I mean, I don't have any preference here, but what's the harm if it's in a subpackage and built by default? In my opinion, we can remove it once upstream at least starts not to build it by default?

End-users will have to swap to the full intel-media-driver by hands. Having this package might interfere with this process. I don't get what you mean by "once it's upstream" ? There is no plan to get this library into a separate project. This is backward. cmrt is now part of intel-media-driver and not meant as separate library.

...

Also according to version numbers in 23.4 is pre-release software (might need any ABI breaking update). please only import in rawhide for now.

Yeah, I always forget that tags are just for development versions here, will keep that in mind once it's imported and follow stable releases unless we need to use devel for some reason.

Thanks

On the other hand, I don't see a big harm in importing it to f39 too? The API/ABI should be "libva/VAAPI" no? And if there arrives something that depends on the distributed .so (can/should that happen?), we can handle that in a side-tag?

What I mean by 23.4 is pre-release is that any later 23.4 serie can mandates any higher libva library (or else) than what currently has f39. Also Intel VAAPI is know to silent break ABI from time to time, so even minor releases need to be carefully audited. At the end, we don't want to rebuild all libva userspace deps for a single driver update (even if we could do this in fedora/rpmfusion it will nevertheless break many legitimate copr users that might have different maintenance pace).

I hope to have clarified the point.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

František Zatloukal fzatlouk@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|POST |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |intel-media-driver-free-23. | |4.3-1.fc40 Last Closed| |2023-12-21 20:54:35

--- Comment #66 from František Zatloukal fzatlouk@redhat.com --- Forgot to update this, the package is in the repositories, rawhide for now, f39 will come as soon as we get a stable 23.4.x release, if gmmlib and libva requirements aren't raised above f39 providers.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132

--- Comment #68 from Michael Catanzaro mcatanza@redhat.com --- The binary package you want is: libva-intel-media-driver