On 01/25/2012 02:56 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
Hi Eric,I don't like this, because I don't have drirc in my system. Obviously Canonical decided not to include it and that also means some of my users don't have it. Please can we add workarounds directly in the code and on a per-app basis? Something like: if (is_linked("libUnigine_x86.so") || is_linked("libUnigine_x64.so")) apply_workarounds_for_unigine(); Marek
I don't follow. Fedora doesn't ship an /etc/drirc by default, either, but the mechanism is all in place to use it. So if you put one there, it takes effect. I'd be pretty shocked if they intentionally went to the effort to remove that mechanism.
I don't see why distros would be opposed to shipping a configuration file. We just haven't needed one in the past. Plus, this workaround is only necessary for 8.0 and later, where we expose GL3. Since users are getting a whole new driver, they can easily get a drirc as part of that package upgrade. It doesn't really matter that they don't have such a file today.
Whether we put the workarounds list in code or XML, I like the approach of having a few flags for workarounds and maintaining the mapping of applications -> workarounds in one place.
Another question: is it possible to determine whether libUnigine_xXX.so is linked in? The driconf options today only seem to allow matching on an application binary name. Running "strings" on the binaries does mention libUnigine_xXX.so; if feasible, that would be a lot nicer than matching on binary name. There's already Sanctuary, Heaven, Tropics, OilRush, and more actual games to come.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
