On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 02:03 -0700, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Aras Pranckevicius <a...@unity3d.com> wrote: > >> > But I perceive talloc as different from all above: it's very low level > >> > and low weight library, providing very basic functionality, and upstream > >> > never showed interest for Windows portability. I'd really prefer to see > >> > the talloc source bundled (and only compiled on windows), as a quick way > >> > to have glsl2 merged without causing windows build failures. > >> > >> This seems like a reasonable compromise. Is this something that you and > >> / or Aras can tackle? I don't have a Windows build system set up, so I > >> wouldn't be able to test any build system changes that I made. > > > > Ok, looks like how/if to bundle talloc is still a very open question. In the > > meantime, here's talloc 2.0.1 made to compile (and possibly work!) with > > Visual C++ 2008 (Windows) and Xcode/gcc4.0 (Mac). > > I've attached the modified talloc.c & talloc.h and the patch from original > > talloc 2.0.1 (from here http://samba.org/ftp/talloc/). Caveat emptor: I only > > verified this to work on my own GLSL2 fork, which does not compile in GLSL2 > > preprocessor, only the compiler & optimizer. > > Like I said before, "full port" of talloc seems to be not needed for > > compiling on Visual C++; just drop in talloc.h & talloc.c into the project > > and that's it. Same for Mac with Xcode. It also seems that GLSL2 does not > > use full talloc's functionality, and at least half of the implementation > > could be dropped without anyone noticing. Just a note for if/when anyone > > would try to re-implement talloc with Mesa's license. > > Be careful about LGPLv3 rules, > > If you are distributing anything linked with an LGPL library without > accompanying source you need to dynamically link it, > > So for example a Windows driver or non open compiler, you can't just > drop the LGPLv3 c+h files into the project, you need to create a > dynamic library.
Yep. I got excited with v3's http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html section 5, "combined libraries", but rereading it I found the requirement to use shared library (or ship the object files for the closed source bits) is still there in section 4 d) 1). I think this pretty much settles on my mind that we need a BSD reimplementation of this in the medium term, as the hassle of changing all the installer and code signing code to install/sign a new dll would by far exceed the effort necessary to implement the functionality of talloc missing from its muse, halloc. Jose _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
