On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Andreas Beck wrote:
> If DirectX doesn't build smoothly, so what. Basically for DirectX support to
> reach users, we have to distribute foolproof click-on-that-setup.exe style
> binaries anyway, so no problem if that is the only one.
My only reservation here is I haven't seen the DirectX target working
on a DirectX 8.x machine. But, personally I do not think we should
hold up 2.0beta4 for this; we should fix it all up for 2.0final and
have working .deb, .rpm, BSD and cygwin packages when we release 2.0final.
> Building needs to be fixed to work without LibGG being preinstalled. I think
> that has been done - will verify later if/when I find the time.
I can verify that tonight.
> DGA Target needs to be fixed for Matrox or the problem needs to be
> documented, so that people don't wonder too much, when it fails.
I say we just document it... we can readdress the issue when we code
in true DGA2.0 support.
We should also just document the problems Christoph had with DGA+display-sub,
and document that there are problems with svgalib not returning to
X's vc when run from X; perhaps just by filing bugs at SF.
I'd like to make sure that KGI targets are disabled/commented
as being crusty so we don't get a lot of questions on the ML about them
and people don't waste effort on new chipset drivers using them as a template.
There really is nothing more on the 2.0beta4 TODO list.
Personally I think we can codefreeze/release right away...
--
Brian
