On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 09:17 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:59 AM, José Fonseca wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 06:41 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 02:12:25PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 06:05 -0800, Jakob Bornecrantz
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:59 AM, José Fonseca wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 06:41 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 02:12:25PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 06:05 -0800, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
>> > > On 13 feb 2009, at 15.00, José Fonseca wrote:
>> >
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 06:41 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 02:12:25PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 06:05 -0800, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
> > > On 13 feb 2009, at 15.00, José Fonseca wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 05:44 -0800, Maciej Cencor
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 18:43 -0800, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >
> > Gallium3D currently builds on Linux userland (gcc), Windows user-space
> > (MSVC, MinGW, and MinGW cross-compilers) and Windows kernel-space (MSVC
> > only unfortunately). Mesa3D/Gallium3D scons build system supports all
> > those combi
>
> Gallium3D currently builds on Linux userland (gcc), Windows user-space
> (MSVC, MinGW, and MinGW cross-compilers) and Windows kernel-space (MSVC
> only unfortunately). Mesa3D/Gallium3D scons build system supports all
> those combinations, *today*.
Jose it supports building, I think Donnie's p
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 09:57 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 08:58 Fri 13 Feb , Brian Paul wrote:
> > Maciej Cencora wrote:
> > > What's the deal with all those build systems? Can't we agree on one and
> > > drop
> > > the rest?
> >
> > We'll probably get there one day.
> >
> > I'm still
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
> My understanding is that MinGW runs nicely on Windows systems and will
> deal with autotools just fine. Is the requirement to build using the
> Microsoft compilers rather than to build and run on Windows? If so, that
> seems pretty odd an
On 08:58 Fri 13 Feb , Brian Paul wrote:
> Maciej Cencora wrote:
> > What's the deal with all those build systems? Can't we agree on one and
> > drop
> > the rest?
>
> We'll probably get there one day.
>
> I'm still pretty attached to the old static config file system. I've
> never been mu
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Maciej Cencora wrote:
>
> Head is OK now. What about make clean? Shouldn't it delete all files from lib/
> directory?
It never has before. You can run 'make realclean' if you want to
obliterate everything.
--
Dan
-
On piątek, 13 lutego 2009 16:58:23 Brian Paul wrote:
> Maciej Cencora wrote:
> > Actually demos don't build without your patches. I run make clean but it
> > doesn't remove most of lib/ files so the progs/demos build succeed at
> > first.
>
> Can you check that Mesa master/head is OK now?
>
> > Wha
Maciej Cencora wrote:
> Actually demos don't build without your patches. I run make clean but it
> doesn't remove most of lib/ files so the progs/demos build succeed at first.
Can you check that Mesa master/head is OK now?
> What's the deal with all those build systems? Can't we agree on one a
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:04 AM, Maciej Cencora wrote:
> On piątek, 13 lutego 2009 15:41:49 Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>
>> Since GLEW is only needed with the GLUT demos, wouldn't this be better?
>>
>> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
>> index 549ca90..36b5859 100644
>> --- a/configure.ac
>> ++
On piątek, 13 lutego 2009 15:41:49 Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 02:12:25PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 06:05 -0800, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
> > > On 13 feb 2009, at 15.00, José Fonseca wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 05:44 -0800, Maciej Cencora wrote
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 02:12:25PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 06:05 -0800, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
> > On 13 feb 2009, at 15.00, José Fonseca wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 05:44 -0800, Maciej Cencora wrote:
> > >> On środa, 11 lutego 2009 00:47:52 Brian Paul wrote
On piątek, 13 lutego 2009 15:00:25 José Fonseca wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 05:44 -0800, Maciej Cencora wrote:
> > On środa, 11 lutego 2009 00:47:52 Brian Paul wrote:
> > > OK, the merge is done and pushed. Seems to have gone OK.
> > >
> > > Please report any problems found and we'll try to fix
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 06:05 -0800, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
> On 13 feb 2009, at 15.00, José Fonseca wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 05:44 -0800, Maciej Cencora wrote:
> >> On środa, 11 lutego 2009 00:47:52 Brian Paul wrote:
> >>> OK, the merge is done and pushed. Seems to have gone OK.
> >>>
On 13 feb 2009, at 15.00, José Fonseca wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 05:44 -0800, Maciej Cencora wrote:
>> On środa, 11 lutego 2009 00:47:52 Brian Paul wrote:
>>> OK, the merge is done and pushed. Seems to have gone OK.
>>>
>>> Please report any problems found and we'll try to fix them ASAP.
>>
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 05:44 -0800, Maciej Cencora wrote:
> On środa, 11 lutego 2009 00:47:52 Brian Paul wrote:
> > OK, the merge is done and pushed. Seems to have gone OK.
> >
> > Please report any problems found and we'll try to fix them ASAP.
> >
> > -Brian
>
> The GLEW library isn't build so a
On środa, 11 lutego 2009 00:47:52 Brian Paul wrote:
> OK, the merge is done and pushed. Seems to have gone OK.
>
> Please report any problems found and we'll try to fix them ASAP.
>
> -Brian
The GLEW library isn't build so all progs/demos builds fail. One have to
manually enter the src/glew dire
2009/2/10 Anders Juel Jensen :
> PS.: Oh, http://wiki.x.org/wiki/Development/git just became obsolete. Can
> someone knowledgable also give quick instructions on how to actually run
> gallium there?
I can update the page (and others), as soon as I know...
...what would be supposed to be created w
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 17:27, Brian Paul wrote:
> Stephane Marchesin wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 15:53, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Jerome Glisse
>>> wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 16:47 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> Jerome commented
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 17:27, Brian Paul wrote:
> Stephane Marchesin wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 15:53, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Jerome Glisse
>>> wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 16:47 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> Jerome commented
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:22:04 -0800
Ian Romanick wrote:
> Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > We can do either:
> > - have some new build targets, like "linux-gallium-dri" etc, that
> > build the drivers and put them in mesa/lib/xyz_dri.so
>
> I don't think people outside VMWare are using the build targ
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 08:27 -0800, Brian Paul wrote:
> Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 15:53, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Jerome Glisse
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 16:47 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Jerome commented out the D
Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 15:53, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Jerome Glisse
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 16:47 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
Jerome commented out the DRI_DIRS part and some other stuff in the
gallium branch and
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Stephane Marchesin
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 15:53, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Jerome Glisse
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 16:47 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
Jerome commented out the DRI_DIRS part and some othe
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 15:53, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 16:47 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>>
>>> Jerome commented out the DRI_DIRS part and some other stuff in the
>>> gallium branch and that's been merged in. I was goi
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 16:47 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>
>> Jerome commented out the DRI_DIRS part and some other stuff in the
>> gallium branch and that's been merged in. I was going to take a look
>> at it a little later, but if you just
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 16:47 -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Ian Romanick
> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Brian Paul wrote:
> >> Brian Paul wrote:
> >>> Over the next day or so we're going to merge the gallium-0.2 branch to
> >>>
/src/egl is still missing install targets using autoconf.
Cheers, Johannes
--
Create and Deploy Rich Internet Apps outside the browser with Adobe(R)AIR(TM)
software. With Adobe AIR, Ajax developers can use existing skills
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Ian Romanick
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Brian Paul wrote:
>> Brian Paul wrote:
>>> Over the next day or so we're going to merge the gallium-0.2 branch to
>>> master. master and gallium-0.2 are both development branches and
>>> kee
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Paul wrote:
> Brian Paul wrote:
>> Over the next day or so we're going to merge the gallium-0.2 branch to
>> master. master and gallium-0.2 are both development branches and
>> keeping the core Mesa work synced between them is a bit of PITA.
>
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:22, Ian Romanick
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Keith Whitwell wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 13:10 -0800, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Whitwell wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 13:10 -0800, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
> In
OK, the merge is done and pushed. Seems to have gone OK.
Please report any problems found and we'll try to fix them ASAP.
-Brian
--
Create and Deploy Rich Internet Apps outside the browser with Adobe(R)AIR(TM)
softwar
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
>
> BTW everyone, I'm planning on merging gallium-master-merge to master this
> afternoon.
>
> Then I'll merge in the latest gallium-0.2 changes to get those. (OR, should
> I merge gallium-0.2 into gallium-master-merge first? Git gurus?)
>
> gal
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
>> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Brian Paul wrote:
Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Dan Nicholson
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Brian Paul
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Brian Paul wrote:
>>>
>>> Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Dan Nicholson
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
>>
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Brian Paul wrote:
>> Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
> In terms of the build system, we'll initially default to the non-gallium
Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
> On 10 feb 2009, at 16.46, Brian Paul wrote:
>> Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
>>> On 10 feb 2009, at 08.17, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 01:57 +0100, Anders Juel Jensen wrote:
> On Monday 09 February 2009 22:15:44 Keith Whitwell wrote:
>>> but is it p
On 10 feb 2009, at 16.46, Brian Paul wrote:
Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
On 10 feb 2009, at 08.17, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 01:57 +0100, Anders Juel Jensen wrote:
On Monday 09 February 2009 22:15:44 Keith Whitwell wrote:
but is it possible to build both gallium drivers and class
On 12:39 Tue 10 Feb , Keith Whitwell wrote:
> I think I'd prefer either building all or none of the drivers in each
> case, rather than trying to tweak things up or down driver by driver.
>
> Given Dave's preference for building both legacy + gallium drivers from
> the existing linux-dri-* tar
Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
> On 10 feb 2009, at 08.17, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 01:57 +0100, Anders Juel Jensen wrote:
>>> On Monday 09 February 2009 22:15:44 Keith Whitwell wrote:
> but is it possible to build both gallium drivers and classic
> drivers from
> the s
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 05:41 -0800, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
> On 10 feb 2009, at 13.39, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 04:21 -0800, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
> >> On 10 feb 2009, at 08.17, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 01:57 +0100, Anders Juel Jensen wrote:
>
On 10 feb 2009, at 13.39, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 04:21 -0800, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
>> On 10 feb 2009, at 08.17, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 01:57 +0100, Anders Juel Jensen wrote:
On Monday 09 February 2009 22:15:44 Keith Whitwell wrote:
>> but
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 11:24 -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
> Brian Paul wrote:
> >
> > Over the next day or so we're going to merge the gallium-0.2 branch to
> > master. master and gallium-0.2 are both development branches and
> > keeping the core Mesa work synced between them is a bit of PITA.
> >
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 04:21 -0800, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
> On 10 feb 2009, at 08.17, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 01:57 +0100, Anders Juel Jensen wrote:
> >> On Monday 09 February 2009 22:15:44 Keith Whitwell wrote:
> but is it possible to build both gallium drivers and cl
On 10 feb 2009, at 08.17, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 01:57 +0100, Anders Juel Jensen wrote:
>> On Monday 09 February 2009 22:15:44 Keith Whitwell wrote:
but is it possible to build both gallium drivers and classic
drivers from
the same tree at the same time?
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 01:57 +0100, Anders Juel Jensen wrote:
> On Monday 09 February 2009 22:15:44 Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > > but is it possible to build both gallium drivers and classic drivers from
> > > the same tree at the same time?
> > >
> > > or is distro life going to be made shit yet agai
On Monday 09 February 2009 22:15:44 Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > but is it possible to build both gallium drivers and classic drivers from
> > the same tree at the same time?
> >
> > or is distro life going to be made shit yet again.
>
> Anything's possible -- I guess I'm not clear on which is prefera
Corbin Simpson wrote:
> Brian Paul wrote:
>> Over the next day or so we're going to merge the gallium-0.2 branch to
>> master. master and gallium-0.2 are both development branches and
>> keeping the core Mesa work synced between them is a bit of PITA.
>>
>> To work out the kinks I'll be pushing
Brian Paul wrote:
> Over the next day or so we're going to merge the gallium-0.2 branch to
> master. master and gallium-0.2 are both development branches and
> keeping the core Mesa work synced between them is a bit of PITA.
>
> To work out the kinks I'll be pushing a short term
> "gallium-mas
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Brian Paul wrote:
> Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
In terms of the build system, we'll initially default to the non-gallium
build. To bui
> We can do either:
> - have some new build targets, like "linux-gallium-dri" etc, that
> build the drivers and put them in mesa/lib/xyz_dri.so
No not the one we'd like.
> or
> - build both lots of drivers, and put the gallium ones in a new
> directory, like mesa/lib/gallium/xyz_dri.so
I'd
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 13:10 -0800, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In terms of the build system, we'll initially default to the non-g
Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
>>> In terms of the build system, we'll initially default to the non-gallium
>>> build. To build with gallium I'll add some new configs like
>>> 'linux-gallium'.
>
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
> >>
> >> In terms of the build system, we'll initially default to the non-gallium
> >> build. To build with gallium I'll add some new config
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
>>
>> In terms of the build system, we'll initially default to the non-gallium
>> build. To build with gallium I'll add some new configs like
>> 'linux-gallium'.
>
> I haven't tried building
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 10:24 -0800, Brian Paul wrote:
> Brian Paul wrote:
> >
> > Over the next day or so we're going to merge the gallium-0.2 branch to
> > master. master and gallium-0.2 are both development branches and
> > keeping the core Mesa work synced between them is a bit of PITA.
> >
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
>
> In terms of the build system, we'll initially default to the non-gallium
> build. To build with gallium I'll add some new configs like
> 'linux-gallium'.
I haven't tried building gallium at all, but is there interest in
adding support to the
Brian Paul wrote:
>
> Over the next day or so we're going to merge the gallium-0.2 branch to
> master. master and gallium-0.2 are both development branches and
> keeping the core Mesa work synced between them is a bit of PITA.
>
> To work out the kinks I'll be pushing a short term
> "gallium-
Over the next day or so we're going to merge the gallium-0.2 branch to
master. master and gallium-0.2 are both development branches and
keeping the core Mesa work synced between them is a bit of PITA.
To work out the kinks I'll be pushing a short term
"gallium-master-merge" branch for testing
62 matches
Mail list logo
