On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 12:49 -0800, Ian Romanick wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Adam Jackson wrote: > > On Thursday 15 December 2005 19:18, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote: > > > >>Please also see bug #5057 > >>At my point of view > >>defines IN_DRI_DRIVER and USE_EXTERNAL_DXTN_LIB=1 are very specific and > >>only used in Mesa. > >>So the patch on bug #5057 ( the last one ) or something similar, don't > >>see what problems can cause on applying it. > > > > The problem in applying it is that we are in RCfinal now. This was a known > > issue for over a month and was never put on the release blocker, so > > apparently wasn't critical enough to block the release. > > > > Yes, this sucks. But we have process rules for a reason. > > WHOA!!! Without IN_DRI_DRIVER, building DRI drivers is 100% broken. If > we ship like this, we're shipping something that is completely KNOWN to > be broken and will NEVER have ANY chance of working. I thought this was > applied over a month ago. What happened?
What happened ?!? nothing I send some emails, fill some bug reports and made some patches. Roland Scheidegger as open the bug 5057 and I made other patch. Well Ian, first of all what patch we are talking about, what patch you suggest that should be applied ? If IN_DRI_DRIVER define was so important, we had much more bugs reports. In fact I (or we) found this bug occasionally. My opinion for this specific case, is that we should try the most similar compilations of Mesa in or out of Xorg sources , and that is a fact that _out_ of xorg sources with make linux-dri-x86 the IN_DRI_DRIVER and USE_EXTERNAL_DXTN_LIB=1 are used and _in_ xorg sources don't. I had test and apply, the last patch of bug #5057 and I got the issues of this bugs resolved. I don't know what else I can do. Ian you could make this blocker, if think that is important ! thanks, -- Sérgio M.B.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
