Comment 32 for bug 1376587

Understood. But then what are users who would like to install both
packages to do? It is an expensive fix to buy a new video card.

Jack

On 2015-01-17 06:38 AM, nukedathlonman wrote:
> *** This bug is a duplicate of bug 1129409 ***
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1129409
>
> Hi Jack,
>
> The bug isn't in the Wine package's (at least, not any more), the show
> stopper for getting Wine working with Catalyst is being caused by a
> fight between ocl-icd-libopencl1 packages and the fglrx-core and/or
> fglrx-updates-core Catalyst packages in the repo's as well as on AMD's
> website at present time (from here on in I'll just refer to fglrx-core -
> it applies tot he fglrx-updaes-core packages as well).
>
> The basic problem is that the AMD fglrx-core won't install ocl-icd-
> libopencl1 because both packages provide the virtual package libopencl1
> (NOTE: the package ocl-icd-libopencl doesn't provide a libOpenCL.so file
> as I originally feared however) - do to this, ocl-icd-libopencl1 won't
> install with out removing the fglrx-core because it too provides a
> virtual libopencl1 package.
>
> So the package manager ends up thinking that if you Want Wine, to
> resolve the conflicts it has to remove the fglrx-core packags.
>
> Now, I could put the fixed packages into a PPA, except that would leave
> some OpenCL bugs in place (I'm not a package maintainer, and aside from
> modifying the control file in the fglrx-core packages (that's to per
> terje's earlier post), I'm not really sure how to also bundle in he
> OpenCL fixes into the package. I suppose I could make a corrections
> package from scratch for the OpenCL corrections, but again, I'm not sure
> how to do that as I've never done that before.
>
> Besides (food for thought), I have one other problem putting out
> corrected package in a PPAs. Does ocl-icd-libopencl actually provide
> libopencl1 support directly like the AMD fglrx-core packages do, or is
> ocl-icd-libopencl providing enhancements to libopenCL1? Which package
> should be creating the libopenCL1 virtual package? Thats the question,
> and the main reason why I don't want to make a PPA.
>