On Die, 2011-06-14 at 09:45 -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 18:25 +0200, Marek Olšák wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > This series reworks some of our configure options to make Gallium > > > easier to configure. > > > > > > First, there is a new option --with-gallium-drivers=DIRS, which > > > replaces the current heap of options --enable-gallium-DRIVER. > > > --disable-gallium is removed as well, instead, > > > --with-gallium-drivers= without parameters should be used to > > > disable Gallium. > > > > > > --enable-gallium-egl is removed. having --enable-egl and > > > --with-gallium-drivers=somedriver is sufficient. > > > > > > --with-state-trackers is removed as well. The list of state > > > trackers is automatically deduced from the --enable-API options > > > (the vega,egl state trackers) and --with-driver=dri|xlib (the > > > dri,glx state trackers). Some state trackers lack an enable flag > > > now, so these two have been added to make the list complete: > > > --enable-xorg and --enable-d3d1x. > > > > > > In order to be able to "git bisect run" through this change, you > > > can specify both the old and new options at the same time. Those > > > that are unsupported are ignored. > > > > > > Other than that, I am enabling r600g by default and removing r300g > > > and r600g from scons. I am not a fan of having multiple build > > > systems and most people prefer autoconf anyway. It's not like > > > anybody needs to build those drivers on Windows. > > > > I did use r600g + scons for the little bit of work I did there, and > > if I > > went back to it, it would continue to be with scons... > > > > Is there a significant cost to you having it there? > > > > Keith > > Ditto. I've been building r600g on linux with scons too -- scons it's > much better for continuous integration/testing, given one doesn't need > to do make clean everytime, just to ensure the dependencies are > computed correctly. > > Given that autoconf will never support MSVC, if people don't like > multiple build systems, then autoconf+gmake is definely not the one to > bet on. > > I've been (slowly) trying to get scons to build everything, and plan > to do so. So that scons can be a viable alternative eventually.
That would certainly seem like a better solution. As another example, scons is currently the only useful way to build 32 and 64 bit binaries from a single tree. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.vmware.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
