-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 26.07.2013 19:59, Kai Tietz wrote: > Am 26.07.2013 01:22 schrieb "LRN": >> On 26.07.2013 09:33, Ozkan Sezer wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:18 AM, LRN wrote: >>>> On 24.07.2013 00:22, Kai Tietz wrote: >>>>> thank you for the heads up. Sure, it would me vety appreachiated if you >>>>> would take care for this update. >>>>> You should have commit rights. So please sent mail with attached patch, >>>>> get approval for it, and then apply. >>>>> JonY, Jacek, Ozkan, or dw can give you assistance, if you require. >>>> >>>> OK, one question though: >>>> When previous generation of these headers was committed, what changes >>>> did the committer do to the original headers from the GL registry? >>>> Because newer version are quite different from the ones that are >>>> currently committed (this may be OK, since headers are generated from >>>> XML definitions, so they probably are not expected to produce small >>>> diffs when switching revisions, but still). >>>> >>> >>> They are some older version before opengl.org switched to using xml >>> registry instead of old .spec files. The last version of the old >>> headers are these: >>> >>> http://www.opengl.org/registry/oldspecs/glext.h >>> http://www.opengl.org/registry/oldspecs/glxext.h >>> http://www.opengl.org/registry/oldspecs/wglext.h >>> http://www.opengl.org/registry/oldspecs/glcorearb.h >>> >>> Now, I dont know which versions were the ones added to our repo, >>> because the ones from opengl.org as linked above do produce a diff: >>> see attached gl.diff to see. >>> >>> The latest official headers though, will indeed produce a large diff >>> because they are generated the new way. >> >> OK, so, i've looked briefly at the trunk vs oldspecheaders diff, it >> seems that no mingw-w64-specific changes were made, headers were >> committed verbatim. >> >> Anyway, for new 4.4 headers the diff is huge, and there's no adjustments >> are (presumably) necessary, which begs the question: what's the point of >> attaching a patch and getting approval for it? >> >> P.S. "presumably" means that i haven't tested these new headers with the >> few GL-using packages that i do build. But i will. >> > Well, the point is documenting the change in ML, too. Not only in SVN > repository. > Additiinally it shows what patch will change and nobody gets surprised by > it.
Oh-kay. I've tested the patch, and the few GL things that i do compile (that would be gst-plugins-gl first and foremost, as well as glew) are fine with it. So i'll attach the compressed patch to my next message. Do note that the patch is _bigger_ than new files themselves (103kb compressed vs ~79kb compressed), so the patch might have to go through moderation first. - -- O< ascii ribbon - stop html email! - www.asciiribbon.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR/+k7AAoJEOs4Jb6SI2Cw/GwH/iNcW1ijPG/fNz9+BzT6Cd7Q KERZWwJfBBZl2uMNr+k1zOIWj1JqtLsEwcXs3KiUqcjryjrkoflB8Tgp5LhrHtUy zOYviO2xVSG734iqS/1rzCL2rsG2w/ukPZmpvQAeVn/5XsE/uCMy/Rf4qfA0FhF/ wnkfa0hQukCFaxTzeVoXGvFeoathq8FPovOjLOieqgBorjeMZ4BtTI8oztlJjeTx 869uSzgLEuIv1edh7LrVuYuc5mr9liL0lHFDHxLf9cTNEPF89sVb/XByiP9Q3FGX Cwn845dhlLIFr3jOjHyyF/OJAKcmgpC5Q9N0V8c/YGIV9opozotOQp3aUbyYZQ4= =fVnr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your SQL database under version control now! Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=49501711&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
