Hi, On 23 October 2012 19:37, Tomas Frydrych <tf+lists.yo...@r-finger.com> wrote: > On 23/10/12 03:06, Daniel Stone wrote: >> You can separate GLU, which we've already done. I think you can >> split out the core of libgbm, but not the DRI plugin. And that's >> about it. > > I am well aware that GL stacks are closely tied together, and personally > would not advise anyone to mix and match. But please reread the original > email Ross sent explaining the Cedar Trail 'complex' situation. If Intel > want to use mesa GL and their PVR GLES1/2 / EGL binary bits together ...
That'll break catastrophically for anyone using GL + EGL, but eh, if they're insane enough to support it, and you're insane enough to explicitly allow for it as a supported configuration ... > Regardless what is done with the packaging, allowing only mesa to stage > dev files will break things. GL headers are not interchangeable, even if > all the implementers are well behaved (which is a big if), the > *platform.h files are allowed to be implementation specific and so have > to be staged by the actual platform GL stack. Right, I do agree with you, but in the mixed-stack situation, which headers are we building against? :) Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core