On Sad, 2004-06-12 at 00:53, Ian Romanick wrote: > I think I would actually prefer it if the 3D were named unichrome_dri.so > and the DDX were changed. The reason being that there will likely be > future "via" chipsets that may share the 2D driver but not the 3D. The > current situation of ati_drv.o and mach64_dri.so, r128_dri.so, > radeon_dri.so, and r200_dri.so shows what I'm talking about. It would > have been really confusing if r128_dri.so had originally been named > ati_dri.so.
I talked to VIA about this in the early days. They pointed at ati_drv.o as an example of why they should be able to use via as the top name for all their chipsets 8) Its also now crept into multiple vendors config/distribution tools and into users config files. The _dri.so file OTOH seems to be fair game without breaking anything, and I agree ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the new InstallShield X. >From Windows to Linux, servers to mobile, InstallShield X is the one installation-authoring solution that does it all. Learn more and evaluate today! http://www.installshield.com/Dev2Dev/0504 -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
