On 03/23/2011 01:29 PM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 15/03/2011 00:23, Brian Paul wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
Can I apply for mesa commit access, since no-one seems to be particularly
interested in picking up my patches?
Sure, there's instructions on the website.
I've
On 15/03/2011 00:23, Brian Paul wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>> Can I apply for mesa commit access, since no-one seems to be particularly
>> interested in picking up my patches?
>
> Sure, there's instructions on the website.
I've created a request in bugzilla[1], pl
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Brian Paul wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Jon TURNEY
> wrote:
>> On 16/02/2011 15:44, Julien Cristau wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 15:11:34 +, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>>>
At the moment, libGL cannot be built --with-driver=dri
--disable-dr
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> On 16/02/2011 15:44, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 15:11:34 +, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>>
>>> At the moment, libGL cannot be built --with-driver=dri
>>> --disable-driglx-direct
>>> on platforms which don't have libdrm.
>>>
>>>
On 16/02/2011 15:44, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 15:11:34 +, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>
>> At the moment, libGL cannot be built --with-driver=dri
>> --disable-driglx-direct
>> on platforms which don't have libdrm.
>>
>> --with-driver=dri is the only way to build a libGL which sup
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 15:11:34 +, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> At the moment, libGL cannot be built --with-driver=dri --disable-driglx-direct
> on platforms which don't have libdrm.
>
> --with-driver=dri is the only way to build a libGL which supports indirect
> rendering.
>
> This patch set makes
At the moment, libGL cannot be built --with-driver=dri --disable-driglx-direct
on platforms which don't have libdrm.
--with-driver=dri is the only way to build a libGL which supports indirect
rendering.
This patch set makes libdrm only required if --enable-driglx-direct is used,
and makes --disab
On 29/10/2010 06:58, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> While the patch works great for better
> config options and at reducing the compile time, it does not avoid
> unnecessary PKG_CHECK_MODULES. But I think that belongs to follow-on
> works.
Tangentially related to that, here's a few patches (combining patches
