On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:35:25 +0900 Damian Hobson-Garcia <dhobs...@igel.co.jp> said:
> Hi Carsten, > > On 2014-07-25 3:46 PM, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:14:01 +0900 Damian Hobson-Garcia > > <dhobs...@igel.co.jp> said: > > > >> Hi Carsten, > >> > >> On 2014-07-25 2:24 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > >>> > >>> On 07/25/2014 02:13 PM, Damian Hobson-Garcia wrote: > >>>> Hi Carsten, > >>>> > >>>> On 2014-07-25 1:07 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>> Mesa could also be used during build time instead of the > >>>>>>> opegl-es-virtual-drv. > >>>>>> Yes and no, I think. There is the minor problem that the > >>>>>> Mesa drivers provide a versioned libGLESv2.so.2, which all of > >>>>>> the built packages will link to. This means that if I want > >>>>>> to install a driver (such as Mali or SGX) after the fact, I > >>>>>> have to provide libGLESv2.so.2 to overwrite the Mesa driver. > >>>>>> If Mesa changes its version number for some reason, now the > >>>>>> Mali and SGX drivers must update their names as well. > >>>>>> opegl-es-virtual-drv is nice because it is not versioned, so > >>>>>> as long as there is a libGLESv2.so (or a link of that name) > >>>>>> in the non floss drivers, everything works. > >>>>> or just provide a symlink. far simpler a solution. drivers > >>>>> just ghave to agree all to provide at least the same symlink to > >>>>> the real driver version > >>>>> > >>>> I don't think it matters whether it's a symlink or not. Either > >>>> way, it requires all of the drivers to keep track of whatever > >>>> version number that Mesa is using for its libGLESv2 and update > >>>> the symlink accordingly. > >>> > >>> for ABI compatibility, mesa can't just go changing major so > >>> version anyway as a binary links agains the major s at the time > >>> i'ts build. if they change major so version they are saying they > >>> broke ABI. so onse everyone is building against libGLxx.so.2 then > >>> it has to stay - unless they break ABI which they neever should. > >>> > >>> so it can be ASSUMED to always be that version - tizen as a > >>> platform has to force/define that and guarantee it across all tizen > >>> variations and versions. if we have to patch mesa (or just add > >>> special symlinks in pkgs) or do the same for other vendor gl > >>> drivers, thatis the price you pay to keep compatibility. that is > >>> what we have to do. > >> > >> I agree that mesa shouldn't be changing their ABI, but if I have a > >> platform that never has and never will use Mesa drivers, why do I care > >> what they do with their ABI one way or the other? If I instead build > >> against something like opegl-es-virtual-drv, then its a complete > >> non-issue. Then nothing needs to be forced or defined, and I don't > >> need any extra symlinks. > > > > you don't need a virtual driver lib at all - just something that is > > libGLxx.so.N that has the symbols. that's it. if thats mesa - so be it. > > ensure the libGLxx.so.N file exists (for real or a symlink). whatever that > > file is NOW in tizen is the abi you have to stick to. > > > > > Right, so if the ABI never changes, then neither will N. So would the > best solution then be to just not have N and just provide libGLxx.so > everywhere? no. because a .so is an unversioned lib and is always used as a symlink TO the actual major version at compiel time and the linker literally reads the link and doesnt link to libGL.so by libGL.so.N which it is pointing to. don't break conventions. this is the linux convention. inconsistency is bad. -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <ti...@rasterman.com> _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.tizen.org https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
