On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 18:44, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:26:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > Why are you so gung-ho about killing libGLU?
> >
> > In order to stop the duplication of effort.
>
> What effort? It's a lot more trouble to patch the XFree86 source tree
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 18:38, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original n
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 18:44, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:26:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > Why are you so gung-ho about killing libGLU?
> >
> > In order to stop the duplication of effort.
>
> What effort? It's a lot more trouble to patch the XFree86 source tree
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 18:38, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original n
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:26:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > Why are you so gung-ho about killing libGLU?
>
> In order to stop the duplication of effort.
What effort? It's a lot more trouble to patch the XFree86 source tree
to pretend libGLU isn't there than it is to just leave well enou
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was
> > > > xfree86-drm-src, but that
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:07:07PM +0100, Sean Neakums wrote:
> Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >> I wish you'd both calm down a little bit about this issue.
> >
> > I have the impression that we're perfectly calm.
>
> I feel
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:26:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > Why are you so gung-ho about killing libGLU?
>
> In order to stop the duplication of effort.
What effort? It's a lot more trouble to patch the XFree86 source tree
to pretend libGLU isn't there than it is to just leave well enou
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was
> > > > xfree86-drm-src, but that
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:07:07PM +0100, Sean Neakums wrote:
> Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >> I wish you'd both calm down a little bit about this issue.
> >
> > I have the impression that we're perfectly calm.
>
> I feel
Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> I wish you'd both calm down a little bit about this issue.
>
> I have the impression that we're perfectly calm.
I feel that Branden's use of "calm" here is in the sense that the
changes have been c
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was
> > > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed.
> >
> > Not too bad, methinks.
>
> I don't like i
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:11, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > Why isn't Mesa 5's libGL built as well?
> >
> > *sigh* How many times will we have to walk this through yet?
> >
> > The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was
> > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed.
>
> Not too bad, methinks.
I don't like it. Are these things really XFree86 X xserver specific, or
just DRI
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > Why isn't Mesa 5's libGL built as well?
>
> *sigh* How many times will we have to walk this through yet?
>
> The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular,
> the former can't use direct rendering, while th
Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> I wish you'd both calm down a little bit about this issue.
>
> I have the impression that we're perfectly calm.
I feel that Branden's use of "calm" here is in the sense that the
changes have been c
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was
> > > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed.
> >
> > Not too bad, methinks.
>
> I don't like i
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:11, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > Why isn't Mesa 5's libGL built as well?
> >
> > *sigh* How many times will we have to walk this through yet?
> >
> > The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was
> > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed.
>
> Not too bad, methinks.
I don't like it. Are these things really XFree86 X xserver specific, or
just DRI
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > Why isn't Mesa 5's libGL built as well?
>
> *sigh* How many times will we have to walk this through yet?
>
> The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular,
> the former can't use direct rendering, while th
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:12:42PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 14:04, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:35, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > > How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and f
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 14:04, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:35, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and friends?
> >
> > No, as has been discussed here, it's still mesag3 for
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:35, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and friends?
>
> No, as has been discussed here, it's still mesag3 for hysterical
> reasons. We have to set a good example. :)
"
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:35, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:27:33PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 12:54, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > > Any ideas on what we should call xlibmesa-drm-src and xlibmesa-gl?
> >
> > Time for a little brainstorming session? :)
> >
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:27:33PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 12:54, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > >
> > > The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular,
> > > the former can't use direct
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 12:54, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> >
> > The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular,
> > the former can't use direct rendering, while the latter can't use plain
> > X11 rendering.
> >
> >
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 04:15, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:13:58AM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 03:55, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > > * drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
>
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:12:42PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 14:04, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:35, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > > How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and f
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 14:04, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:35, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and friends?
> >
> > No, as has been discussed here, it's still mesag3 for
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:35, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and friends?
>
> No, as has been discussed here, it's still mesag3 for hysterical
> reasons. We have to set a good example. :)
"
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:35, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:27:33PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 12:54, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > > Any ideas on what we should call xlibmesa-drm-src and xlibmesa-gl?
> >
> > Time for a little brainstorming session? :)
> >
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:27:33PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 12:54, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > >
> > > The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular,
> > > the former can't use direct
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 12:54, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> >
> > The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular,
> > the former can't use direct rendering, while the latter can't use plain
> > X11 rendering.
> >
> >
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 04:15, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:13:58AM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 03:55, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > > * drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
>
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:13:58AM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 03:55, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > * drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
> > > * fix xlibmesa-drm-src name; the DRM isn't a l
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 03:55, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > * drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
> > * fix xlibmesa-drm-src name; the DRM isn't a library, and it has
> > nothing whatsoever to do with Mesa. Some
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> * drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
> * fix xlibmesa-drm-src name; the DRM isn't a library, and it has
> nothing whatsoever to do with Mesa. Something like
> drm-module-src maybe?
> * xlib
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:13:58AM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 03:55, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > * drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
> > > * fix xlibmesa-drm-src name; the DRM isn't a l
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 03:55, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > * drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
> > * fix xlibmesa-drm-src name; the DRM isn't a library, and it has
> > nothing whatsoever to do with Mesa. Some
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> * drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
> * fix xlibmesa-drm-src name; the DRM isn't a library, and it has
> nothing whatsoever to do with Mesa. Something like
> drm-module-src maybe?
> * xlib
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 06:22, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi all,
> The following is a list of the things *I* think still need to be done
> for 4.3.0-0pre1v1. It should not be considered an official XSF document,
> or anything of the sort. If anyone has any comments, please add them.
* drop xlibmes
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 06:22, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi all,
> The following is a list of the things *I* think still need to be done
> for 4.3.0-0pre1v1. It should not be considered an official XSF document,
> or anything of the sort. If anyone has any comments, please add them.
* drop xlibmes
Ye olde updatee.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 02:22:15PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> 4.3.0-0pre1:
> * Build on at least 80% of current sid architectures (me).
> * Iron out #190323, weak GL deps bug.
> * Have dexconf make backups, etc (Branden: I'm happy to help with
> this).
* Must upgrade
Ye olde updatee.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 02:22:15PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> 4.3.0-0pre1:
> * Build on at least 80% of current sid architectures (me).
> * Iron out #190323, weak GL deps bug.
> * Have dexconf make backups, etc (Branden: I'm happy to help with
> this).
* Must upgrade
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:10:31PM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote:
> Current status:
> xcursor is already installed into sid.
So it is - thanks. My p.d.o search on "xcursor" turned up nothing.
> build checks are done on i386/sparc/alpha.
See p/d/STATUS for info on whether the various architectu
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> The following is a list of the things *I* think still need to be done
>> for 4.3.0-0pre1v1. It should not be considered an official XSF document,
>> or anything of the sort. If anyone has any comments, plea
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:10:31PM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote:
> Current status:
> xcursor is already installed into sid.
So it is - thanks. My p.d.o search on "xcursor" turned up nothing.
> build checks are done on i386/sparc/alpha.
See p/d/STATUS for info on whether the various architectu
Hi all,
The following is a list of the things *I* think still need to be done
for 4.3.0-0pre1v1. It should not be considered an official XSF document,
or anything of the sort. If anyone has any comments, please add them.
4.3.0-0pre1:
* Get xcursor into sid, check separation is clean (Ishikawa?).
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> The following is a list of the things *I* think still need to be done
>> for 4.3.0-0pre1v1. It should not be considered an official XSF document,
>> or anything of the sort. If anyone has any comments, plea
Hi all,
The following is a list of the things *I* think still need to be done
for 4.3.0-0pre1v1. It should not be considered an official XSF document,
or anything of the sort. If anyone has any comments, please add them.
4.3.0-0pre1:
* Get xcursor into sid, check separation is clean (Ishikawa?).
50 matches
Mail list logo
