On 16/05/17 23:26, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 16 May 2017 at 02:07, Timothy Arceri <tarc...@itsqueeze.com> wrote:
On 16/05/17 10:47, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
On Monday, May 15, 2017 4:06:31 PM PDT Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 16/05/17 08:13, Ian Romanick wrote:
On 04/23/2017 10:28 PM, Timothy Arceri wrote:
diff --git a/src/mapi/glapi/gen/APPLE_vertex_array_object.xml
b/src/mapi/glapi/gen/APPLE_vertex_array_object.xml
deleted file mode 100644
index 7312f9b..0000000
--- a/src/mapi/glapi/gen/APPLE_vertex_array_object.xml
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,27 +0,0 @@
So... I'm fairly sure this is going to break loading a _dri.so built
without this patch by a libGL built with this patch.
I recall something like this coming up a few year ago, can you remind me
again why this is a problem? Shouldn't these be updated in sync?
Out-of-tree drivers, such as the legacy DRI1 drivers, won't be updated
in sync (or likely ever). I believe there are also at least two closed
source drivers (though that isn't a good reason not to do this change).
Ken, do you have some specifics - company names, contact points?
<unrelated>
I'm attempting to (re)move libglapi to GLVND and having some other
people to weight in will be appreciated.
</unrelated>
So how does this interact with libglvnd? I would assume those old drivers
are not going to work with libglvnd. Will they need to be packaged
separately with there own libGL build in future anyway? Or will they still
work?
They still work, since the libglapi ABI is unchanged. I haven't
checked the old DRI1 modules but ancient DRI2 ones with GLVND are
fine.
I see. I've never looked to far into how libglvnd works but I was hoping
that it meant we could have multiple Mesa distributions e.g dri1
drivers, old to semi modern drivers (all classic besides i965, up to
r300 gallium), and current Mesa. Where each would have their own version
of libglapi and all the drivers could co-exist on the system, allowing
us to clean things up and not worry about backwards compat.
Anyway it seems that's not how it works at all which makes libglvnd a
little less exciting in my mind :(
On the patch itself I need to double-check, but I think it would be
fine. Please don't quote me :-)
Personally I'm hoping other distros follow Fedoras lead and start using
libglvnd so we can split out even more old drivers into a separate project
and do some much needed tidy-up.
And i wish people are more careful as they write patches - ~1/2 of the
patches in Fedora are broken ;-)
Back on topic, a most of the tidy ups depend on:
- deprecating ancient DRI loader/drivers support (note DRI1 is
unchanged), as just mentioned in another thread.
- lifting and splitting out the shared glapi from the almost
exclusively Win32 specific static one.
-Emil
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
