On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 13:18 -0700, Aras Pranckevicius wrote: > > Could then Aras Pranckevicius's talloc port to windows be > merged into > > glsl2 branch before glsl2 is merged into master? > > > I think we learned our lesson with GLEW. Trying to keep a > copy of an > external dependency in our tree only leads to sadness. I have > no > intention to repeat that mistake. >
> I suspect there may also be some issue with including a piece of > software with such a different license in our tree. I'm not a > lawyer, > so I may be unnecessarily paranoid here. *shrug* > > Another option I was considering (mostly for my own needs; I need to > use GLSL2 fork in a closed source product) is a from-scratch > implementation of talloc that keeps the same interface. Similar to > what Mono folks have did with glib (they wrote their own eglib that > matched the license and was much smaller in the result). That's a good idea. Jakob was also considering adding the missing bits to http://swapped.cc/halloc/ to make it compatible with talloc at source level. > In my case, talloc's LGPL is quite a hassle because I have to build > talloc dlls/dylibs, which complicates deployment & packaging, etc. > I had not time to do that yet and probably won't have in the next > month or two though :( > talloc is not very large, looks like just taking one .h and .c file is > enough. And then there are quite a few functions that GLSL2 does not > ever use. I really can't condone the glsl2 branch merge until we have some consensus on how the talloc dependency should be handled, windows or not. Jose _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
