El Dom 16 Sep 2001 18:00, Leif Delgass escribió:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Manuel Teira wrote:
> > BTW. Could anybody say me what is the AVOID_CPIO define used for ?
>
> Looking at xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/Imakefile, this is
> defined by default only for Sparc and PPC. Here's the comment:
Thank you, Leif.
>
> > Do you think we need to startup from another code base? I made the
> > Gareth's code migration to the XFree4.1.0 CVS trunk, but somebody said
> > before that there's a newer trunk for the DRI.
> > My opinion is that we need urgently to have a common codebase for all the
> > people interested to work in the Mach64 driver. So, if you think we must
> > merge with the DRI newest trunk please make me know.
>
> I agree that we need a common codebase, but my understanding is that we
> need a working patch before we can start a new branch in CVS. I guess the
> question is whether it makes more sense to get a patch working based on
> the 4.1.0 release first and then merge in changes from the trunk or to do
> the merge now. Of course the trunk is a moving target, but there may be
> changes in the 2D driver that would be helpful. Frank?
Anyway, It would be nice to have a common code now, at least to have the same
scenery while hunting the DMA bug. Perhaps little differences in the code
used could drive us to very different results, because I think that we are
really near (of having a working DMA, I mean).
I agree with you about the fact of the better the newer trunk we use,
but I think that the 2D driver implications we could suffer won't change if
we use a different DRI trunk (I suppose that the 2D base differences between
the 4.1.0 trunk and the newest DRI trunk doesn't matter ).
-- M. Teira
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
