On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Christopher James Halse Rogers <christopher.halse.rog...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 08:58 +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote: >> This promotes a private interface to a public one, right? If so that >> isn't really doing us any favours as next people will complain when that >> newly public interface varies between releases. > > Not really; the new libraries are private (contained within > $DRI_INSTALL_DIR, so /usr/lib/dri by default) and unversioned. This is > not significantly different to, say, the shared objects in /usr/lib/egl > which have come and gone without complaint. > > This patch does *not* expose any additional interfaces in the public > libGL, GLES, etc libraries. Where objects need to be built with default > visibility, they're built twice; once with -fvisibility=hidden for the > code destined for the public libraries, once without for the shared, > private libraries. > >> >> If you want to save disk space by sharing components, what about an >> alternate approach -- investigate methods for building all the DRI >> drivers into a single binary? That would keep the internal interface >> private & possibly share more space than this approach. >> > It would indeed save a bit more space, and also apply more easily to the > gallium drivers. It'd require a much larger patch though - we'd need to > change the libGL←→dri driver interface and patch X to keep up, right? > > If that's the direction you'd prefer to go, I could look at doing that. > I think it'd be substantially more invasive, though, and more difficult > to make optional.
I don't think my concerns are sufficient to hold this up -- if others aren't concerned then guess I'm ok with this as an optional mechanism for environments where version skew is unlikely, such as live cds. Keith _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
