Bug 1800429
| Summary: | Review Request - box86 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Raphael Groner <projects.rg> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, ppisar |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | NotReady | ||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2020-11-26 02:59:22 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 1788327 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Raphael Groner
2020-02-07 03:51:35 UTC
I do not see the SRPM and spec file. Did you forget to upload the link or am I missing something? (In reply to Attila Lakatos from comment #1) > I do not see the SRPM and spec file. Did you forget to upload the link or am > I missing something? First, we need bug #1788327 as a dependency. This request is mainly a preparation to give a chance to the emulator box86 and to get it into Fedora with packaging: "Most x86 Games need OpenGL, so on ARM platforms, a solution like gl4es is probably needed." https://ameridroid.com/blogs/ameriblogs/how-to-run-x86-linux-applications-on-arm-linux-with-box86 Well, I'd need real hardware to seriously test this with. Can someone suggest anything, maybe NanoPi? I hid this review from a review listing. Once your package is ready, delete the "NotReady" word from a whiteboard field. (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #5) > I hid this review from a review listing. Once your package is ready, delete > the "NotReady" word from a whiteboard field. Thanks for your interest. Sorry for the long delay to provide anything, currently too busy with other things⦠Copied over from bug #1788327 (rewiew GL4ES): (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #10) > (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #3) > > Thanks for the hints. I'll continue asap due to limited time. > > > > This request is mainly a preparation to give to the emulator box86 a chance > > and to get into Fedora with packaging: > > "Most x86 Games need OpenGL, so on ARM platforms, a solution like gl4es is > > probably needed." > > https://ameridroid.com/blogs/ameriblogs/how-to-run-x86-linux-applications-on- > > arm-linux-with-box86 > > As Fedora is concerned, arm (and aarch64) FLOSS drivers are using mesa and > plain libGL already. > > The only use case where this would be useful would be the PI downstream > driver (not provided by Fedora) or Mali drivers (not provided by Fedora), > and few others. > So if you want box86 on arm with plain libGL and the related mesa drivers > (vc4/v3d for PI and lima for Mali), nothing hold. > > If you are interested in downstream drivers for PI, then I'm trying to > "federate" various userspace in a dedicated rpi namespace in rpmfusion. > The reason why it has to be dedicated is because a ffmpeg built with bcmhost > enabled (PI downstream driver) would make the whole build PI specific. So my > guess is that gl4es, once built with -DBCMHOST=1 would be also specific and > not useful at all on Lima cases and others. > > So that's the reason why I expect this build to be on copr. As I don't > expect a generic build to be anything useful. > At least can you submit a box86 review, so we can any if anything hold ? New review started in another request, see bug #1901665. (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #5) > I hid this review from a review listing. Once your package is ready, delete > the "NotReady" word from a whiteboard field. Anyways, thanks so far for your interest. See bug #1788327 for more details about continuation plans. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1901665 *** |