Re: [gentoo-dev] Modular X plans

[Ferris McCormick <fmccor@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1804 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 17:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Ferris McCormick wrote:
> | It always makes sense to enable glx (Mesa) whether there is DRI support
> | or not; some applications can run adequately well using the
> | Mesa-indirect approach, and some graphics cards --- e.g., Elite == afb
> | --- don't allow dri at all.  That is what (for sparc, at least) USE=glx
> | should control.
> 
> I don't see why mesa should have a glx USE flag, unless you're referring
> to a flag in xorg-server?

I was refering to the USE=glx flag for the xorg-server, not a new flag
for mesa.
> 
> | So, ultimately, the mesa ebuild should work as you have it if it is
> | given USE="dri glx", but it should build sparc-specific modules.
> | However, it it gets USE="-dri glx", it should arrange to build libGL
> | stand-alone, because the user is saying in effect "I do want mesa/openGL
> | installed, but I am unable to support DRI", and mesa can be built that
> | way.
> 
> I still don't understand why they wouldn't just build a glx-using libGL
> instead of an Xlib-using libGL. This would mean setting a blank DRI_DIRS
> and keeping DRIVER_DIRS = mesa.
> 

I don't know yet.

> I can understand, however, that one might like to avoid building the DRI
> drivers with a USE=dri flag.
> 

Right.  On my afb (Elite) systems, the only reason I ever have for
building dri drivers is to see if they build; afb has never been dri
capable.

> In fact, you've actually convinced me that the glx USE flag as a whole
> is probably a bad idea and I should always force it on in xorg-server too.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie

Regards,
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]