On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 11:02 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > And why is this a good thing? I'm adamantly against building the non-glx
> > libGL here for standard use, and I will continue to oppose it. Be normal
> > people and do the same thing as everybody else in the world who's ever
> > used libGL in X.
> 
> To give you some more concrete information:
> 
> 1) The GLX one is almost certain to perform better in software
> 2) The standalone one definitely won't support ffb or any other form of
> DRI (obviously), and building two libGL's is just silly.
> 3) When accelerated indirect rendering works, the standalone won't work
> with it either.
> 
I don't disagree with any of these points, and it turns out that libGL
from mesa-6.3.1.1 (with DRI modules) works OK with current glx for mesa
indirect.  My problems have been related to the changes to the build in
mesa itself which result in either missing externals or doubly defined
externals when you use sparc assembly code.  So all I am really going to
need for sparc is to define a proper set of DRI drivers.

Notice, however, that the mesa ebuild does not seem to install the dri
drivers anyplace.  I suppose they should go
into /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers, but the don't.  It seems that the
ebuild uses mesa's 'installmesa' script to populate the image to
install, but installmesa looks only for include files and objects which
match lib*.  I don't see how it ever can install things like
mach64_dri.so (and, indeed, it doesn't).


Sorry for the confusion.


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