On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 08:47:49PM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>
> From the DRI people's point of view, it leads to more work as we'd want our
> drivers to work with both trees -- but that's pretty much life, and we'll
> have to do what we can to minimize the effects on us.
With a fork imminent
Michel,
You're bring in issues that effect more than just the X development
community here, so I'm copying the DRI and Mesa developers.
Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2003-04-03 at 22:03, Alan Cox wrote:
From the DRI people's point of view, it leads to more work as we'd want our
drivers to work
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 08:43:31AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> Possible
> Future: Mesa Tree -+--> XFree86 Tree
> - API Focus|- X/3D Integration
> - 3D HW Focus |- Complete Window System Focus
> |
> +--> Alternate
Philip Brown wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 08:43:31AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
Possible
Future: Mesa Tree -+--> XFree86 Tree
- API Focus|- X/3D Integration
- 3D HW Focus |- Complete Window System Focus
|
+--> Alter
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 10:09:00PM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Philip Brown wrote:
> > Are you perhaps envisioning pushing Mesa to evolve into something
> > like the nvidia UDA API? Where there is suddenly a single, unified
> > cross-hardware/OS platform for all 3d-accel hardware access to pro
Philip Brown wrote:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 10:09:00PM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Philip Brown wrote:
Are you perhaps envisioning pushing Mesa to evolve into something
like the nvidia UDA API? Where there is suddenly a single, unified
cross-hardware/OS platform for all 3d-accel hardware acces
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 10:34:05PM +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> >[Philip Brown writes]
> > So to truely create something akin to nvidia's UDA libs/interface, would
> > involve porting support for 3d hardware currently handled by DRI, over to
> > Mesa, and making mesa capable of using it directly,
