On Monday 20 February 2006 10:28, Brian Paul wrote:
> Adam Jackson wrote:
> > I'd like to push this to the 6.4 branch if there's no objections.
>
> Fine by me.

Thanks.

> > There's a longer term issue here in that we may want to split the GLX
> > client lib out into xorg/lib along with all the other bits that generate
> > X protocol. I'm not convinced either location is right; opinions
> > solicited.
>
> Isn't a lot of that generated from the gl_API.xml file in Mesa?  That
> might make moving things a little tricky.  Ian should probably comment.

Yeah, I always forget about the glapi stuff.

In one sense it's nice that you can just build Mesa and get all the bits you 
need for a totally up-to-date DRI stack on the client side.  But the 
bootstrapping issues are sort of painful.  Mesa has to get built before the X 
server now, thanks to xgl, but you still need a bunch of its source around to 
build libglx/libGLcore.  If libGL were split out, then you'd still need Mesa 
to build the server's GLX support, but you could in principle build all of 
the GL drivers at once.

So it kinda sucks either way.

- ajax

Attachment: pgpI5lZCaD39W.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to