| 1 |
On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 00:32, José Fonseca wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> If you think that Mesa itself is redundant and should be masked, ok - |
| 4 |
> that's another option (just now I've been troubleshooting a Gentoo user |
| 5 |
> which installed Mesa over X and DRI wasn't working) -, but the current |
| 6 |
> nowhere-land situation makes no sense. Mesa-glu _is_ being used, only that |
| 7 |
> is the 3.5 version - for no reason. And there have been quite some |
| 8 |
> bugfixes since. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Bottom line, either Mesa is completely masked out or is completely |
| 11 |
> unmasked, and the same goes for GLU. Keeping an older version for no |
| 12 |
> reason makes no sense. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Sorry for the late reply, but was MIA a bit. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
True, we still have the mesa ebuilds, but the virtuals |
| 18 |
should (virtual/glu) be satisfied by xfree. Yes, I know |
| 19 |
they all should be masked, but havent gotten to it, or |
| 20 |
rather, im still sorda in limbo. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
What installed Mesa over X? If this happens, the ebuild |
| 23 |
is broken, or somebody messed with the |
| 24 |
/usr/portage/profile/<foo>/virtuals . |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Getting Mesa 4.0.x to work with opengl-update ... might |
| 27 |
be a plan, but then I think we should drop the seperate |
| 28 |
ebuilds, and only have mesa (not mesa, and mesa-glu). |
| 29 |
How does 4.0.1 work with DRI currently ? Last reports |
| 30 |
I had, was that the ones (3.4.2 distributed with xfree) |
| 31 |
still worked best in 99% of setups. So basically ... |
| 32 |
is there really a need for 4.0.1 ? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
PS: CC me if you reply. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Greetings, |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Martin Schlemmer |
| 42 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Developer |
| 43 |
Cape Town, South Africa |
Archives