On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 04:10 -0700, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:00 PM, José Fonseca <jfons...@vmware.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 17:40 -0700, Dave Airlie wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:42 AM, José Fonseca <jfons...@vmware.com> wrote: > >> > On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 12:52 -0700, Ian Romanick wrote: > >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> >> Hash: SHA1 > >> >> > >> >> José Fonseca 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. > >> > > >> > Having the GLEW source was quite useful for windows. I guess the lesson > >> > would not be not ship source, but only build it if necessary. If talloc > >> > source is not needed for Linux then we can just build it when absent. > >> > You can even ignore it from automake. > >> > >> Can't you guys setup a separate windows deps repo? that you gather all > >> the prereqs for building on Windows > >> in one place and recommend people check it out before mesa? > > > > Unfortunately there is no standard way to install headers and libraries > > in windows -- there's no /usr/include or /usr/lib, and there might be > > multiple MSVC versions. There are ways around it, sure. Might be worth > > giving a shot eventually. > > > >> Really optimising for the wrong bunch of people here by dragging this > >> stuff into mesa git. > > > > Many projects do this: they include the source of other projects, to > > make it easier to build without having to build all dependencies. > > We spend a lot of time unbundling stuff in projects because its a > really bad model, esp for things like security updates. What happens > if the version of talloc we ship ends up a with a problem and nobody > is tracking upstream and notices the issue, this doesn't scale, at > some point you have to draw a line, again you have 0 experience with > packaging mesa for its main purpose and use case, so excuse me if I > dismiss the rest of your pithy comments.
Good points, but I still don't see how my proposal of not building them on linux does not address them. > talloc is a bit different than glew I can accept that, since glew > isn't a mesa build req, but should we start shipping bison, flex etc, > is it only build reqs or runtime reqs? no. but that's why we commit the bison and flex output in the repository for example. > it would be nice instead of > being an ass you perhaps helped draw up some guidelines with all the > other Windows folks. my feelings exactly when I read the last sentence of your previous email. in a hindsight perhaps you meant distributions + end users vs developers, but I understood it as windows developers == bunch of wrong people, and linux developers == bunch of good people. who cares. there isn't "wrong bunch of people" regardless. Jose _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
