On 26 April 2016 at 12:36, Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> wrote:
> We used virtual/mesa to mean "the Mesa APIs and so on" so libgbm is > covered by this. Of course at the time there was only one implementation > in mesa. Now that there are genuine alternative reimplementations of > libgdm then I agree that a virtual/libgbm is a good move, and replacing all > of the virtual/mesa instances that are actually just for libgdm. Just had a chat with a friendly graphics developer. Currently libgbm is tied to the drivers and GL stack implementation, so it makes perfect sense that mesa's libgbm should probably be renamed along with the GL bits to libgbm-mesa, and other drivers ship their own libgbm, and we have a virtual/libgbm to pick between. Patches welcome from someone who has relevant hardware to test it actually works. Ross
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
