David Nusinow wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 02:50:31PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> This is just a suggestion.
>>
>> I think these two items, scheduled for 6.8.2-2, really ought to be done
>> before the first upload to unstable, just to avoid potential serious
>> breakage. The rest of the
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 02:50:31PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This is just a suggestion.
>
> I think these two items, scheduled for 6.8.2-2, really ought to be done
> before the first upload to unstable, just to avoid potential serious breakage.
> The rest of the items look like they're reas
>> Arthur Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think it would be too hard to build such a package from the X
> sources. Almost every thing you would need is in the directory [X
> source]/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/drm/kernel you
> just need to package the Imake genera
>> Arthur Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think it would be too hard to build such a package from the X
> sources. Almost every thing you would need is in the directory [X
> source]/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/drm/kernel you
> just need to package the Imake gener
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 09:11:38PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> For indirect rendering, the application talks to the X server via the
> GLX protocol (there's no library talking to the hardware in this case).
> The server decodes the GLX requests and renders them appropriately
> (which me
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 12:01:14PM -0600, Joshua Shagam wrote:
> > I'm still apprehensive about moving *_dri.so out of /usr/X11R6/lib/modules.
> > If they aren't really X server modules, then they don't belong in that
> > directory (maybe /usr/lib/xlibmesa3 ?). Should I ask upstream?
>
> Ur, alth
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 09:11:38PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> For indirect rendering, the application talks to the X server via the
> GLX protocol (there's no library talking to the hardware in this case).
> The server decodes the GLX requests and renders them appropriately
> (which m
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 12:01:14PM -0600, Joshua Shagam wrote:
> > I'm still apprehensive about moving *_dri.so out of /usr/X11R6/lib/modules.
> > If they aren't really X server modules, then they don't belong in that
> > directory (maybe /usr/lib/xlibmesa3 ?). Should I ask upstream?
>
> Ur, alt
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm still apprehensive about moving *_dri.so out of
> /usr/X11R6/lib/modules. If they aren't really X server modules, then
> they don't belong in that directory (maybe /usr/lib/xlibmesa3 ?).
> Should I ask upstream?
I don't understand in wha
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:20:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 09:17:05AM -0600, Joshua Shagam wrote:
> > It's not the compiled code which has to match between DRI and DRM,
> > just the interface. I'm using a DRM module compiled along with my
> > 2.4.0-test8 kernel jus
From: Sven Heyll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Suggestion
Date: 09 Oct 2000 11:16:40 -0100
> Hi,
>
> why not splitting the xfree86-server package, so that the drm/dri stuff
> is in an extra package and can be compiled before installing. Dri
> modules have to be
> compiled with the corresponding
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 09:17:05AM -0600, Joshua Shagam wrote:
> > It's not the compiled code which has to match between DRI and DRM,
> > just the interface. I'm using a DRM module compiled along with my
> > 2.4.0-test8 kernel just fine with the precompiled mga.so and mga_dri.so
> > which came i
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm still apprehensive about moving *_dri.so out of
> /usr/X11R6/lib/modules. If they aren't really X server modules, then
> they don't belong in that directory (maybe /usr/lib/xlibmesa3 ?).
> Should I ask upstream?
I don't understand in wh
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 09:17:05AM -0600, Joshua Shagam wrote:
> It's not the compiled code which has to match between DRI and DRM,
> just the interface. I'm using a DRM module compiled along with my
> 2.4.0-test8 kernel just fine with the precompiled mga.so and mga_dri.so
> which came in the X pa
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:20:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 09:17:05AM -0600, Joshua Shagam wrote:
> > It's not the compiled code which has to match between DRI and DRM,
> > just the interface. I'm using a DRM module compiled along with my
> > 2.4.0-test8 kernel ju
From: Sven Heyll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Suggestion
Date: 09 Oct 2000 11:16:40 -0100
> Hi,
>
> why not splitting the xfree86-server package, so that the drm/dri stuff
> is in an extra package and can be compiled before installing. Dri
> modules have to be
> compiled with the corresponding
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 09:17:05AM -0600, Joshua Shagam wrote:
> > It's not the compiled code which has to match between DRI and DRM,
> > just the interface. I'm using a DRM module compiled along with my
> > 2.4.0-test8 kernel just fine with the precompiled mga.so and mga_dri.so
> > which came
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:16:40AM -0100, Sven Heyll wrote:
> Hi,
>
> why not splitting the xfree86-server package, so that the drm/dri stuff
> is in an extra package and can be compiled before installing. Dri
> modules have to be
> compiled with the corresponding drm version, which is provided
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 09:17:05AM -0600, Joshua Shagam wrote:
> It's not the compiled code which has to match between DRI and DRM,
> just the interface. I'm using a DRM module compiled along with my
> 2.4.0-test8 kernel just fine with the precompiled mga.so and mga_dri.so
> which came in the X p
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:16:40AM -0100, Sven Heyll wrote:
> Hi,
>
> why not splitting the xfree86-server package, so that the drm/dri stuff
> is in an extra package and can be compiled before installing. Dri
> modules have to be
> compiled with the corresponding drm version, which is provided
20 matches
Mail list logo
