| 1 |
On 2009-04-07, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Is there anything that would break if we remove this symlink? And does |
| 3 |
> it make sense to have both mesa and apple-opengl installed? I thought |
| 4 |
> mesa provides an opengl implementation? I'm not to familiar with this |
| 5 |
> stuff, so please tell me if I'm wrong. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Hi Grobian, |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
well, to be honest, I'm not deep into this either. "osmesa.h" declares |
| 10 |
functions in /usr/X11R6/lib/libOSMesa.dylib, which is not currently |
| 11 |
included in apple-opengl, so it wouldn't really change something if we |
| 12 |
omitted it. Both header and library are not part of the OpenGL standard |
| 13 |
and but provide additional functionality (offscreen rendering). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Mesa is an OpenGL implementation doing rendering in software or through |
| 16 |
DRI, which is Linux specific. It's most useful on platforms that don't |
| 17 |
come with a native OpenGL implementation. On other platforms it's likley |
| 18 |
only useful for developers. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
However, since the ebuild is already in prefix and I was currently in |
| 21 |
the need of having Mesa on my box, I have now an ebuild with Darwin |
| 22 |
compatiblity modifications and would happily contribute it. ;) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Br, |
| 25 |
Dirk. |
Archives