On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24/07/14 22:08, Dylan Baker wrote: >> On Thursday, July 24, 2014 09:32:38 PM Emil Velikov wrote: >>> On 22/07/14 19:43, Dylan Baker wrote: >>>> GBM_DRIVERS_PATH is not documented, and only used to set the location of >>>> gbm drivers, while LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH is used for everything else, and >>>> is documented. >>>> >>>> Generally this split leads to confusion as to why gbm doesn't work. >>>> >>>> This patch makes LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH the main variable, but uses >>>> GBM_DRIVERS_PATH as a fallback if LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH is NULL. >>> >>> Dylan if we're going the LIBGL road, can we please use the GBM variable >>> first and then fallback to the LIBGL one ? This way things won't break for >>> people using the former. Meanwhile I'm writing docs/gbm.html with some >>> rough description what gbm is and all the env vars used :-) >>> >> >> Is there a usecase for having a seperate GBM_DRIVERS_PATH? > Guess we'll know that when people come complaining that it broke their setup. > It will be piglit's "OMG this broke my setup - revert revert. But this has > been on the ML for xx days", story all over again.
Isn't this a vacuous problem? The drivers GBM opens are the same drivers specified by LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH, and there's never been any difference or way to install "GBM drivers" elsewhere. I.e., no one ever has specified something different for GBM_DRIVERS_PATH and LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH intentionally. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
