Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Brian Paul <bri...@vmware.com> wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:07 AM, José Fonseca <jfons...@vmware.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 07:36 -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Jakob Bornecrantz
<wallbra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Since we don't have any progs in mesa that uses glew anymore is it
okay if we drop it? I have attached a patch which drops it its a bit
big so I packed it. And here is the change thingy:
configs/beos | 2 +-
configs/darwin | 2 +-
configs/default | 4 +-
configs/freebsd-dri | 2 +-
configs/linux-cell | 2 +-
configs/linux-dri-xcb | 2 +-
configs/linux-indirect | 2 +-
configure.ac | 2 +-
include/GL/glew.h |14435
------------------------------------------------
include/GL/glxew.h | 1476 -----
include/GL/wglew.h | 1247 -----
src/SConscript | 1 -
src/glew/LICENSE.txt | 73 -
src/glew/Makefile | 54 -
src/glew/SConscript | 69 -
src/glew/glew.c |14320
-----------------------------------------------
src/glew/glewinfo.c | 8441 ----------------------------
src/glew/visualinfo.c | 1173 ----
18 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 41299 deletions(-)
This got stuck in the moderation queue, resending without the patch.
Looks good.
But it would be handy to have glew in the mesa-demos tree so that we
don't all have find/install the latest version.
Yes.
And glut, could we move glut to demos too? It would make building on
windows easy again.
glut might be something that deserves its own repo since some people
use Kilgard's glut as their system glut. Requiring them to get that
from a demos package seems a little odd. But splitting it out of the
main mesa package seems nice, if not just for licensing reasons.
I'd be OK with that, but please don't remove it until glut is set up
somewhere else, either in the demo repo or a new repo.
I could move the glew sources into the demo tree but someone else will have
to setup the automake stuff.
I'm sure we can also make automake detect if glu and glut is installed
and use the system ones instead of the ones shipping within the demos
repo (also overridden with a option).
Can we do the same to glu and glw?
Actually, I'd like to take a little time to let things settle down a
bit before moving GLU and GLUT out of the Mesa tree. I'm still
cleaning up loose ends from the changes we've made so far.
Also, I like being able to build all these libs at once and point
LD_LIBRARY_PATH to one place to be sure I'm getting all the libraries
I expect. Having 3 or 4 different locations for all this stuff isn't
going to be as convenient for some of us. Let me think about it.
Giving "--disable-glu --disable-glw --disable-glut" as arguments to
configure is getting old.
Do you do that just to reduce compile time?
-Brian
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
