On Don, 2002-11-07 at 17:38, Alan Hourihane wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:32:03PM +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote: > > Michel Dänzer wrote: > > >On Don, 2002-11-07 at 16:56, Keith Whitwell wrote: > > > > > >>Michel Dänzer wrote: > > >> > > >>>These no longer get built by default. Any objections against the > > >>>attached patch? > > >>> > > >>Actually if they're not built, I think we should ditch them from cvs. > > >>We're not working on them. > > >> > > > > > >In that case I'd vote again for removing unused drivers etc. as well. > > > > I'm ok with that too, as long as it simplifies rather than complicates the > > lives of people who are doing XFree merges. > > I wouldn't like to remove the drivers. They don't cause any import conflicts > and they're useful to those who want to start a DRI driver for another chipset.
They can trivially be added back in that case, and these libraries for people who want to provide packages off the DRI tree. > But GLU is a pain in the neck. It has alsorts of $Id, $Revision and $Date > cvs tags that get updated during commits. This causes import conflicts > and the work involved to resolve them. I doubt we'll ever work on GLU or GLw. I see, I'll cope. Anyway, back to the point of my patch: even in the context of the XFree86 tree, does it make sense only to build these libraries when all libraries are built, even if the user explicitly wants to build them? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: See the NEW Palm Tungsten T handheld. Power & Color in a compact size! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?palm0001en _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
