On 3 September 2015 at 20:33, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It looks like the comments have mostly been negative. Fwiw I'm in favour of the series. They provide a sane, up-to date version of the config. Sort of like how nowadays xserver does not require xorg.conf in 90+% of the cases.
But if others feel strongly against that so be it :'-( >> If I get any >> other bugs related to this, I'll have to resort to using setenv in the >> driver to get the behavior that should be the default. >> >> There are 2 unresolved issues though: >> >> 1) The location is hardcoded to /etc/drirc in xmlconfig.c. Installing >> Mesa to a different location should also install drirc there and load >> it from there. > > Solution is to use sysconfigdir instead of /etc. > Yes please. >> >> 2) Using LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH won't use the correct drirc file. The only >> remaining solution to that is to kill LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH. > I'm confused ... what does LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH has to do with the location of drirc ? Afaict it has always been solely about the location of the dri module(s). Imho inexperienced users should not thinker with this env var, should they ? If they do and things go bad, it's their own fault. One (hypothetical) alternative is to move it to the debug build (barring some other changes on the topic) ? > I've always suggested that people do "make install" and > LD_LIBRARY_PATH instead of this LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH hack. IMHO that > only leads to confusion. > If one installs to DESTDIR, LD_LIBRARY_PATH is not sufficient. Although I take it that there's only a few of us that do so ;-) Cheers, Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
