On Monday, July 15, 2013, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Brendan Conoboy <b...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 07/11/2013 10:41 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: >>>> >>>> Kernel, glibc, all the core library stacks. And I would argue that yes, >>>> this >>>> *includes* libGL. So llvmpipe needs fixed, outside of any desktops. >>>> Should >>>> we define the core functionality better? Probably. >>> >>> >>> I would argue that it does not include libGL because it's not a requirement >>> for headless deployment scenarios. Why would you argue for it? >> >> I would argue that it's nothing to do with headless scenarios but more >> that the vast majority of ARM GPUs support GL-ES which is a >> sub/different standard of desktop GL (sorry, I'm not a graphics >> programming expert!) and the support for that in mesa and in general >> is terrible. There was a proposal to refactor mesa and when I spoke to >> ajax (I think, sorry ajax if it wasn't you) or someone it wasn't >> basically moving forward upstream at the moment. I'm not sure who >> originally was driving this (my google fu doesn't give me the mailing >> list proposal ATM). > > It is getting a bit off the topic, but this it isn't really a problem > with mesa. But rather that we have non-gallium closed src drivers > from the GPU vendors in the ARM space, which only support GLES. And > most/all of the desktop stuff packaged in fedora (in particular, > gnome-shell) is requiring GL.
This is incorrect. It uses cogl which has a gles renderer wich is supposed Tod work. If it does not that is just a bug that we should fix.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
