Re: [gentoo-dev] Mesa >=3.5 masked!?

["José Fonseca" <j_r_fonseca@yahoo.co.uk>]

On 2002.05.21 22:51 Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 00:32, José Fonseca wrote:
> 
> > If you think that Mesa itself is redundant and should be masked, ok -
> > that's another option (just now I've been troubleshooting a Gentoo user
> 
> > which installed Mesa over X and DRI wasn't working) -, but the current
> > nowhere-land situation makes no sense. Mesa-glu _is_ being used, only
> that
> > is the 3.5 version - for no reason. And there have been quite some
> > bugfixes since.
> >
> > Bottom line, either Mesa is completely masked out or is completely
> > unmasked, and the same goes for GLU. Keeping an older version for no
> > reason makes no sense.
> >
> 
> Sorry for the late reply, but was MIA a bit.
> 
> True, we still have the mesa ebuilds, but the virtuals
> should (virtual/glu) be satisfied by xfree.  Yes, I know
> they all should be masked, but havent gotten to it, or
> rather, im still sorda in limbo.
> 
> What installed Mesa over X?  If this happens, the ebuild
> is broken, or somebody messed with the
> /usr/portage/profile/<foo>/virtuals .

I've checked the ebuild and both Mesa and XFree86 provide virtual/opengl, 
but even on my box (which just has XFree86) when making "emerge -p mesa" 
or "merge -p mesa-glu" emerge doesn't complaint. (My portage system it's 
not broken because runnin "emerge -p ?cron" does create a error..) So 
something must be wrong with the ebuilds... they should be blocking.

You can see the thread here: 
http://lists.gentoo.org/pipermail/gentoo-user/2002-May/023856.html .

> 
> Getting Mesa 4.0.x to work with opengl-update ... might
> be a plan, but then I think we should drop the seperate
> ebuilds, and only have mesa (not mesa, and mesa-glu).
> How does 4.0.1 work with DRI currently ?  Last reports

Mesa 4.0 was major step for driver architecture and performance, but this 
is completely transparent to the applications that use since they only 
interface with /usr/lib/libGL.so which is a dispatch lib. In XFree86 Mesa 
is actually embebed in every driver *_dri.so, and the software indirect 
render libGLcore.so.

The more important for applications with Mesa 4.0 is that it's conformant 
with OpenGL 1.3, so it should be also be next with a 1.3 compliant GLU.

> I had, was that the ones (3.4.2 distributed with xfree)
> still worked best in 99% of setups.  So basically ...
> is there really a need for 4.0.1 ?
> 

At least, for me there isn't. I was concerned with GLU, which wasn't on 
the right place (/usr/lib/ligGLU.so) so I thought it had be done via 
mesa-glu - which was old. Now I see that the solution is not install 
mesa-*, but use the XFree86's libGLU.so via the 'opengl-update' script 
too. This way we always keep the OpenGL implementations as a whole, and 
there won't be so much problems when XFree 4.3.0 is released.

Mesa might still be interesting for other people without X, but that is 
not really so important for now. (If you want help with the Mesa ebuilds I 
can help later on - now I'm on a tight schdule for a couple of weeks). 
What's important now is getting XFree86's OpenGL works out of the box.

In other words, IMHO:
  - libGLU should be managed by 'opengl-update'
  - it shouldn't be possible to install Mesa with X (at least, until it's 
managed by opengl-update too)
  - the nvidia OpenGL still needs a GLU, so the ebuild should compile Mesa 
3.4.x GLU - which seems to be the one that is expected by the drivers
  - sgi-glu should be dumped since it's not really necessary. It's the one 
used in Mesa 4.x, and will be used when the X uses it too.

> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Martin Schlemmer

Regards,

José Fonseca