On 29/10/12 17:26, Burton, Ross wrote: > Rule 1. Unambiguous package naming > > I won't repeat this, everyone agreed this was sane. I've a patch for > mesa that I'll submit shortly. > > Rule 2. No whitelisting for GL driver conflicts > > The target GL shall be staged, and situations which result in multiple > GLs being installed should handle this case and resolve it. > > For atom-pc this means building Mesa. For Beagle this means staging > the Beagle binary drivers. For Tegra as I've discovered this is > "interesting" as they don't appear to provide any headers in their > Tegra For Linux tarball... > > For Cedar Trail and EMGD, the easiest solution is a dedicated Mesa > building just GL. As Mesa's DRI driver API isn't stable this is > practically required anyway: the ABI of the libGL we build and the > libGL that the binary driver was built against need to match. This > mesa-just-gl (mesa-solo?) can be in meta-intel unless other machines > turn out to have a similar (crazy) requirement. > > Rule 3. No dependencies on specific GL implementations > > Useful so that GL implementations are swappable on systems where that > can happen, but not essential if there isn't a single blessed GL for > sysroot. We'll do this later. > > Some things that will also happen whilst I do this: > 1) mesa-dri renamed to mesa. Let's get this done nice and early! > 2) mesa stops architecture-overriding enabling of EGL and GLES, so all > architectures that build Mesa get GL/EGL/GLESv1/GLESv2. If you don't > want this don't build Mesa, and the namespaced packaging means there > won't be conflicts. > > Any more comments?
FWIW, I am happy with this proposal :) Tomas _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core