Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 09:59:01AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > Of course. I was just wondering if and how the DRI stuff is currently > > integrated in your packages. I see the *_dri.so modules are in the > > xserver-xfree86 package - they are useless without libGL though, so > > wouldn't they rather belong there? > > I've decided to put all XFree86 server modules in the xserver-xfree86 > package as a tactic to prevent bug reports about being unable to find a > module package, or "THE X SURVUR SHOULD DEPEND ON THE XYZ SURVUR MODULE > BECAUSE SURVUR IZ BROKEN ON MY BOX W1THOUT THE XYZ MODULE. D00D!!1!1!" > (I get lots of bug reports like this, because of course every single > computer in the world is identical.)
*LOL* However, these aren't server modules. They are loaded by libGL for direct rendering. So I think the xlibgl1 package is the logical place for them. > > And I was wondering if it would be appropriate to include the changes from > > my PPC DRI branch into your packages so that we have working DRI in the > > powerpc packages now. May be better to wait until it finds its way into > > the XFree86 CVS though... > > I am more than happy to integrate PowerPC patches (DRI or otherwise) if > they: > 1) Apply to my current source package. I know I make this difficult by > updating from CVS almost every day. > 2) Don't break other architectures (either at compile or run-time). I > really dislike things like %ifarch in RPM .spec files. > > I've been over these issues with Dan Jacobowitz, and unfortunately I think > accomplishing these 2 points is at present just too much work. So we may > end up waiting for Ani to make his fixes portable and push them to XFree86 > CVS. Agreed. That is I'll take care of my stuff myself ;) Michel -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper) \ CS student and free software enthusiast Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc,i386) user \ member of XFree86 and The DRI Project
