Ken Mays wrote: > Martin, > > I was thinking about what Alan said and I'd think > Xorg 7.2 is good enough for testing until Xorg 7.4 > comes out. Skip Xorg 7.3 for now - unless just for > academic (or Sun-internal) reasons.
I have little influence on what Sun's X11 group does. And for FOX I (for my part) will stick with the version they decided to - and prepared to - use. FOX is based on the work of many. > My question was first thinking of your comments and > Moinak's announcement back around April 2007 on a > full Xorg 7.2 build. > We have a bundle of Sun SPARC > video drivers for XSun as well in the download area. > Alan's blog covers this topic on support between XSun > and Xorg so I'll end that note. Phantastic? And what do they have to do with Xorg (except for some of the /dev/fb drivers)? Do you get Xsun-ddx modules to drive Xorg? That's the important issue. > Solaris Ready 'certification' of Sun Graphic > components and video device drivers? - see: > http://www.sun.com/solarisready I'm well aware of the "SolarisReady" logo (which had been important to me when I was a SPARC-novice). But I think it is the wrong program for this purpose. Wouldn't you expect a Solaris_SPARC Sun frame buffer to be compatible with exactly that? Other (internal) code review programs are more appropriate. And they are almost certainly already on their way since June. > Oh, and my comments on Sun OpenGL and OpenGL 2.1 > compliance.... I'll leave that one for next year's > debate!! > > ~K It's not about "1.5" versus "2.1". "Sun-OpenGL" XOR "Mesa", that was my objection. "OpenGL" is an open specification {0}. There are different vendor's implementations of it. "Sun-OpenGL" and "Mesa" are two distinct of those. And I find it a bad idea to re-brand a current Sun-compiled "Mesa" to "Sun-OpenGL", just because someone here hits the Start button. {0} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL Martin This message posted from opensolaris.org
