| 1 |
On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 11:02 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 6 |
> > And why is this a good thing? I'm adamantly against building the non-glx |
| 7 |
> > libGL here for standard use, and I will continue to oppose it. Be normal |
| 8 |
> > people and do the same thing as everybody else in the world who's ever |
| 9 |
> > used libGL in X. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> To give you some more concrete information: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> 1) The GLX one is almost certain to perform better in software |
| 14 |
> 2) The standalone one definitely won't support ffb or any other form of |
| 15 |
> DRI (obviously), and building two libGL's is just silly. |
| 16 |
> 3) When accelerated indirect rendering works, the standalone won't work |
| 17 |
> with it either. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
I don't disagree with any of these points, and it turns out that libGL |
| 20 |
from mesa-6.3.1.1 (with DRI modules) works OK with current glx for mesa |
| 21 |
indirect. My problems have been related to the changes to the build in |
| 22 |
mesa itself which result in either missing externals or doubly defined |
| 23 |
externals when you use sparc assembly code. So all I am really going to |
| 24 |
need for sparc is to define a proper set of DRI drivers. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Notice, however, that the mesa ebuild does not seem to install the dri |
| 27 |
drivers anyplace. I suppose they should go |
| 28 |
into /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers, but the don't. It seems that the |
| 29 |
ebuild uses mesa's 'installmesa' script to populate the image to |
| 30 |
install, but installmesa looks only for include files and objects which |
| 31 |
match lib*. I don't see how it ever can install things like |
| 32 |
mach64_dri.so (and, indeed, it doesn't). |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Sorry for the confusion. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
| 40 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel) |
Archives