On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 17:46 -0800, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> --- Philip Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 06:41:38PM -0600, John Lightsey wrote:
> > > First let me say that if anyone would like to take over updating the
> > > dri-trunk-sid packages on a semi-regular basis, I'd really appreciate
> > > it. I don't track the Debian X or DRI mailing lists closely enough to
> > > keep up with changes.
> >
> > I'd like to, but I'm not sure I have the time. I'll pull the sources
> > over sometime over the new year and take a look.
> >
> This might not be posible untill there is a sutable Xserver avalable !with
> out! using DRI's old xc tree, read below.
The DRI xc tree is dead, it's been folded into the X.Org tree.
> > > On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 15:00 -0800, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> > > > At this time Xorg is used for most of the DRI development. It also
> > seams
> > > > that the dri, glx, and opengl Xdrivers can be built in the Mesa tree
> > with
> > > > libGL and the dri_ Xdrivers. Since Mesa is now able to build
> > against
> > > > Xfree86 and Xorg this would seam to fix most of the problems.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is news to me. I thought the current recommended way of doing
> > > things was to build an Xorg xserver, glx, and libgl, then build the 3D
> > > drivers in Mesa.
> >
> > Maybe he's referring to embedded Mesa?
> >
> No, the current unofficial pkgs use the OLD xc tree to build Mesa and we
> also need to build X from that tree. Since the Mesa tree has changed the
> xc tree is now totaly bittroten, with no reason to correct this. I don't
> think it will be posible to build the Xserver binary w/o using a(read as
> any) xc tree. The only solution I see is to port the needed, if any,
> changes to a working and maintained xc tree.
>
> When this is done the only problem that remains is the 2d Xdrivers, as I
> woulden't expect any one to pickup the MeargedFB code.
The DRI xc tree has been folded into the X.Org tree, including MergedFB
etc.; it's dead.
> I think with little effort the Mesa tree can be made to build a wider
> veriaty of Xdrivers since currenty the 3d Xdrivers are built in this tree.
What 'veriaty of Xdrivers' are you talking about, in particular, what's
a '3d Xdriver'? If you mean DDX drivers, I don't think those will ever
build in the Mesa tree.
> I think this is the best way to get the Debian DRI pkgs building again. I
> would hope that some one familure with Mesa builds would atleast create
> the makefiles and symlinked headers for the 2d Xdrivers to build on.
FWIW, if I had the time to work on those packages again, I'd do it along
the lines of:
* DRM packages from the directory du jour of the mess that is the
DRI CVS drm module.
* libGL and 3D drivers from the Mesa tree (building libGL requires
adding glxproto.h to the tree though).
* X server from the X.Org tree.
> The real problem is how to get the changes out of the old xc tree, this I
> can't solve but I know it must be done, if it must be done.
Repeat after me: The DRI xc tree has been folded into the X.Org tree;
it's dead. The...
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer
Libre software enthusiast | http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
