On 2002.03.11 20:56 Sergey V. Udaltsov wrote: > > The .o shouldn't be packaged, or even built. I'll have to check why > this > > is happening. > Well, hope the next version will be free of these wrong object files. > Well.. this can take a few days since I have to get some time to mess with these scripts. Sorry.
> > Could you please past the output of insmod to see what are the failed > > symbols? > Well, now it is OK. Sorry for disturbing on this issue. For some reason, > it took the old version of mach64.o (bundled with tarball). Now I really > rebuilt it - and still no success in point 2. The module loaded without > problems. > > > > 2. Well, I run updated X but glxinfo shows there is no DR - and the > > > driver is usual mesa:( Ldd informs me about correct libGL and libGLU > > > used for glxinfo. Any ideas? In X log, I do not see any errors > reports > > > - it seems DRI is loaded as necessary.... > So, still same situation... No DR, just "Indirect Mesa". Can it be the > problem of XFree 4.2.0 based on old Mesa? > > > Well, first let's try to figure out the first problem as this second > one > > could be a side effect. > No, it is not... Any other ideas? > Does the X log says "Direct Rendering Enabled" or "Direct Rendering Disabled"? If it does says it's enabled then the problem is related with libGL.so somehow. If it doesn't then it's related to the kernel module / X. > Cheers, > > Sergey > José Fonseca _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
