Re: [gentoo-dev] Modular X plans

[Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ferris McCormick wrote:
> 3.  With USE=-dri, for testing purposes (and in the end, perhaps for
> performance reasons as well), it seems better to change the make target
> to HOSTCONF=linux-sparc, and let user's CFLAGS define the architecture.
> When you do this, you get both a glx-capable libGL and a stand-alone
> libGL

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.

> 4.  For now, in case USE=-dri, I am not calling fix_opengl_symlinks.
> Once I have all of X11R7 into test, I'll revisit this (and the Assembly
> code question) to see what gives the best performance.

Same as above.

> These changes are not very pretty, but they have the benefit of
> resulting in an ebuild for a mesa version of opengl which can actually
> be tested independently from the rest of Modular X.  It is even
> conceivable that other architecture/graphics-card combinations might
> require something similar.

I don't see how the standalone libGL has any relation to the ability to
test mesa with old or new X.

Thanks,
Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC+49vXVaO67S1rtsRArphAJ9UrEwb0zjOkOvOP9mC4CkYlK8+jACgpFoa
mqJAZXt6otRKnsGGLGl2RC8=
=C0d6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list