Spec URL: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/intel-media-driver.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/intel-media-driver-18.3.0-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: The Intel Media Driver for VAAPI Fedora Account System Username: kwizart This package is only relevant for f29+ TODO: - Clear legal issue if any - Add AppData ModAlias support (there is a placeholder from another vaapi backend driver) - Runtime tests (specially that all needed kernel patches are upstream). This package depends on intel-gmmlib review #1637124 rpmlint is clean: 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Unfortunately this is not suitable for Fedora
Hi Nicolas, Can you, please, highlight the reasoning why media driver is not suitable for Fedora? There were a number of issue addressed in the releases after 18.3.0, including: 1. All custom i915 uAPI extensions were removed and driver now goes with the upstream i915 uAPI only 2. Few build options were provided to enable/disable "non-free" shaders (those for which source code was not exposed) 3. cmrt library build was fixed by adopting Linux DSO naming convention, provide .pc files, etc. Would you mind to explore possibility to build "free" version of the driver and include it into Fedora? This would basically correspond to the following driver configuration command line: cmake \ -DENABLE_KERNELS=ON \ -DENABLE_NONFREE_KERNELS=OFF \ -DBUILD_CMRTLIB=ON This will produce limited features driver, but it still will be quite useful. And it is possible to go further completely disabling shaders (aka kernels) and/or cmrt library if desired. Regards, Dmitry.
Hello Dimitry, Thx for asking. The current intel-media-driver package is provided by RPM Fusion with "full features" as part of the "nonfree" section. For the record, the libva-intel-driver is also provided by RPM Fusion, but there on the "free" section. As it was rejected from Fedora because, as I understood, it could rely on some patented algorithms implemented in software. To be allowed in Fedora, at least theses two conditions have to be met, only FLOSS code (no hex files) and no patented concept in software. Also to note that the Fedora packaging policy requests to expunge the source tarball used at build time and redistributed in Fedora from any non-free or patented code. As I'm concerned, I don't plan to sort out if a free only version with partial acceleration worth than nothing (also because I don't have the needed hw), but that's a task that can be picked by anyone else. So if some is interested in, it should be possible for someone else to maintain an intel-media-driver-free package that can co-exist with the full-featured intel-media-driver from RPM Fusion. On the same idea, if someone wants a free only version, but isn't affected if some patented concept are implemented in software, then one can submit an intel-media-driver-freeworld package that should be acceptable in the RPM Fusion free section.
Hi Nicolas, Fedora already ships with the configuration files for a "curated set" of third-party repositories containing non-free software. This includes a separate non-free repository by RPM Fusion that specifically contains packages for the NVIDIA graphics driver (only). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_Party_Software_Repositories http://download1.rpmfusion.org/nonfree/fedora/nvidia-driver/ If RPM Fusion were to move/copy their existing "intel-media-driver" package from their "nonfree" repository into a new separate repository like this, would that be enough for Fedora to add it to its "curated set" of third-party repositories? Otherwise, what would be unacceptable or different in this case? Some users are not comfortable having the full RPM Fusion repositories configured on their system, but they do want an easy way to enable accelerated graphics using the vendor driver and are willing to accept its license. I assume that was the motivation which led to the separate NVIDIA driver repository.
(In reply to David Ward from comment #4) > Hi Nicolas, > > Fedora already ships with the configuration files for a "curated set" of > third-party repositories containing non-free software. This includes a > separate non-free repository by RPM Fusion that specifically contains > packages for the NVIDIA graphics driver (only). This is only to please Red Hat, and there is no reason for any end-users or organisation not to use the FULL set of packages provided by RPM Fusion IMO (that for everywhere in the world). I expect the only problem would be for Red Hat to redistribute any RPM Fusion packages. But there is no issue for end-users perspective to use RPM Fusion. > If RPM Fusion were to move/copy their existing "intel-media-driver" package > from their "nonfree" repository into a new separate repository like this, > would that be enough for Fedora to add it to its "curated set" of > third-party repositories? Otherwise, what would be unacceptable or different > in this case? I've already asked this for the libva-intel-media driver at the time the nvidia-driver was talked about, but it was not acceptable for Red Hat to point at such repository for the same reason the package was not acceptable in Fedora. (potentially patented). intel-media-driver will have the same issue with the addition of using some (optional) non-free bits. > Some users are not comfortable having the full RPM Fusion repositories > configured on their system, but they do want an easy way to enable > accelerated graphics using the vendor driver and are willing to accept its > license. I assume that was the motivation which led to the separate NVIDIA > driver repository. This "fear" is not backed by anything technical or legal. From the past, it was more often experienced that a totally scary package broke everything in the Fedora side than the RPM Fusion side. As already stated, I'm against to cut the packages into small repositories for no gain, the spirit of RPM Fusion is to be a complement of Fedora and use the same packaging method (and processes).
I've created another review request, interested people can follow up here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942132 .