On Iau, 2005-09-29 at 09:49 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 04:07:56PM -0700, Andy Ritger wrote: > > Some of the topics raised include: > > > > - minimum OpenGL version required by libGL > > - SONAME change to libGL > > - libGL installation path > > I think the single most important point is to explicitly disallow > vendor-supplied libGL binaries in the LSB. Every other LSB componenet > relies on a single backing implementation for a reason, and in practic
That is not actually true. It defines a set of API and ABI behaviours which are generally based on a single existing common implementation. > the Nvidia libGL just causes endless pain where people acceidentally > link against it. The DRI libGL should be declare the one and official > one, and people who need extended features over it that aren't in the > driver-specific backend will need to contribute them back. If the LSB standard deals with libGL API/ABI interfaces then any application using other interfaces/feature set items would not be LSB compliant. Educating users to link with the base libGL is an education problem not directly inside the LSB remit beyond the LSB test tools. In addition the way GL extensions work mean its fairly sane for an application to ask for extensions and continue using different approaches if they are not available. In fact this is done anyway for hardware reasons. There is a lack of "is XYZ accelerated" as an API but that is an upstream flaw. Alan ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel