| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ferris McCormick wrote: |
| 5 |
| It always makes sense to enable glx (Mesa) whether there is DRI support |
| 6 |
| or not; some applications can run adequately well using the |
| 7 |
| Mesa-indirect approach, and some graphics cards --- e.g., Elite == afb |
| 8 |
| --- don't allow dri at all. That is what (for sparc, at least) USE=glx |
| 9 |
| should control. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I don't see why mesa should have a glx USE flag, unless you're referring |
| 12 |
to a flag in xorg-server? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
| So, ultimately, the mesa ebuild should work as you have it if it is |
| 15 |
| given USE="dri glx", but it should build sparc-specific modules. |
| 16 |
| However, it it gets USE="-dri glx", it should arrange to build libGL |
| 17 |
| stand-alone, because the user is saying in effect "I do want mesa/openGL |
| 18 |
| installed, but I am unable to support DRI", and mesa can be built that |
| 19 |
| way. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I still don't understand why they wouldn't just build a glx-using libGL |
| 22 |
instead of an Xlib-using libGL. This would mean setting a blank DRI_DIRS |
| 23 |
and keeping DRIVER_DIRS = mesa. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I can understand, however, that one might like to avoid building the DRI |
| 26 |
drivers with a USE=dri flag. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
In fact, you've actually convinced me that the glx USE flag as a whole |
| 29 |
is probably a bad idea and I should always force it on in xorg-server too. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
Donnie |
| 33 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 34 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
| 35 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
iD8DBQFC+p/nXVaO67S1rtsRAtX2AKC0tCW1WwHURu1ZYGdoTiu3dOwEVACg1ueW |
| 38 |
tYBYd/QFC8xbf5mSE8sJymg= |
| 39 |
=O7eX |
| 40 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives