On 5 September 2013 09:33, Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I'd also appreciate someone (Ross maybe?) confirming that if we build > application A against mesa, then change over to a machine that uses emgd > and swizzle the libs around in the sysroot, do we need to recompile the > app? This approach is assuming we do not need to do that. If we do, > there is a different approach we need to take.
So what's happening is that we're revising the original OpenGL policy that I posted in October last year: http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2012-October/070122.html tl;dr: I proposed that 1) we rename all GL packages so they identify their provider (ie libgl-mesa, we do that), 2) no dependencies on specific GL implementations, 3) only Mesa stages. The theory was that Mesa can be considered a canonical implementation of the various GL platforms and that we can *build* against Mesa but *install* the right hardware-specific GL implementation into the images. Nice in theory and it should work, but sadly that isn't the case - the thread has more details. Short version is that some applications *do* rely on specific GL headers, so you can't just swap them around in reality. Maybe it is time to have a mesa-gl recipe alongside mesa that *just* builds the GL libraries. EMGD can depend on it for the driver modules it installs, and presumably other vendors with binary drivers can install it for the software rendering/GLX support (Otavio etc, please step in here!). Ross _______________________________________________ meta-intel mailing list meta-intel@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-intel