Stephen J Baker wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Brian Paul wrote:
Here's another issue. There's an effort underway to standardize
the OpenGL environment on Linux. One aspect of that is version
numbering for the libGL.so file (used to be libMesaGL.so).
I propose this lib name for the
Brian Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've checked in changes so that libGL.so.1.2.310 is built using
the old Makefile scheme.
Steve's been the only one to comment on my new numbering idea.
I respect his opinion but I think I'll release 3.1 beta 3 with
the 1.2.310 number and see what the
On 07-Sep-99 Brian Paul wrote:
Here's another issue. There's an effort underway to standardize
the OpenGL environment on Linux. One aspect of that is version
numbering for the libGL.so file (used to be libMesaGL.so).
I propose this lib name for the 3.1 release: libGL.so.1.2.310
The
On 07-Sep-99 Brian Paul wrote:
I propose this lib name for the 3.1 release: libGL.so.1.2.310
The 1.2 designates an implementation of the 1.2 API specification.
The 310 designates the Mesa version number (3.1.0). The main idea
is to allow Linux OpenGL apps to relink with other OpenGL
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Brian Paul wrote:
Here's another issue. There's an effort underway to standardize
the OpenGL environment on Linux. One aspect of that is version
numbering for the libGL.so file (used to be libMesaGL.so).
I propose this lib name for the 3.1 release: libGL.so.1.2.310
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Brian Paul wrote:
I'd like to make a 3.1 beta 3 release by the end of next week.
Fellow developers, any concerns?
Is anyone going to put in the glGetFuncAddressEXT stuff before
then so we are essentially compliant with the new Linux OpenGL
Base spec?
Steve Baker
Stephen J Baker wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Brian Paul wrote:
I'd like to make a 3.1 beta 3 release by the end of next week.
Fellow developers, any concerns?
Is anyone going to put in the glGetFuncAddressEXT stuff before
then so we are essentially compliant with the new Linux OpenGL
Brian Paul wrote:
I'd like to make a 3.1 beta 3 release by the end of next week.
There have been quite a few bug fixes since beta 2 but I'm not
quite confident enough that a final release is appropriate yet.
I'd like to do more conformance testing and get more end user
feedback.
2) What's the best way to handle multiple drivers for different chipsets?
Well, the best way that I have found to handle it is to use GGIMesa,
which lets you keep the exact same libGL.so core and dynamically load
driver modules on a per-hardware or per-rendering-system basis.
Jon
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Jon Taylor wrote:
Here's another issue. There's an effort underway to standardize
the OpenGL environment on Linux.
...Which explicitly states that this "standardization effort" is
predicated on the existence and use of X/GLX, and hence is not relevant
for
Stephen J Baker wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Jon Taylor wrote:
Here's another issue. There's an effort underway to standardize
the OpenGL environment on Linux.
...Which explicitly states that this "standardization effort" is
predicated on the existence and use of X/GLX, and
I'd like to make a 3.1 beta 3 release by the end of next week.
There have been quite a few bug fixes since beta 2 but I'm not
quite confident enough that a final release is appropriate yet.
I'd like to do more conformance testing and get more end user
feedback.
Fellow developers, any
12 matches
Mail list logo
