On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 17:46 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ferris McCormick wrote: > | It always makes sense to enable glx (Mesa) whether there is DRI support > | or not; some applications can run adequately well using the > | Mesa-indirect approach, and some graphics cards --- e.g., Elite == afb > | --- don't allow dri at all. That is what (for sparc, at least) USE=glx > | should control. > > I don't see why mesa should have a glx USE flag, unless you're referring > to a flag in xorg-server?
I was refering to the USE=glx flag for the xorg-server, not a new flag for mesa. > > | So, ultimately, the mesa ebuild should work as you have it if it is > | given USE="dri glx", but it should build sparc-specific modules. > | However, it it gets USE="-dri glx", it should arrange to build libGL > | stand-alone, because the user is saying in effect "I do want mesa/openGL > | installed, but I am unable to support DRI", and mesa can be built that > | way. > > I still don't understand why they wouldn't just build a glx-using libGL > instead of an Xlib-using libGL. This would mean setting a blank DRI_DIRS > and keeping DRIVER_DIRS = mesa. > I don't know yet. > I can understand, however, that one might like to avoid building the DRI > drivers with a USE=dri flag. > Right. On my afb (Elite) systems, the only reason I ever have for building dri drivers is to see if they build; afb has never been dri capable. > In fact, you've actually convinced me that the glx USE flag as a whole > is probably a bad idea and I should always force it on in xorg-server too. > > Thanks, > Donnie Regards, -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
