On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Simon Farnsworth wrote:
>
>> On 6 Feb 2017, at 22:01, Jan Pokorný wrote:
>>
>> On 06/02/17 15:13 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
>>> There has been a lot of discussions for the last few years about glvnd on
>>> the mesa-devel list and at XDC. This is not Fedora sp
- Original Message -
> From: "Rich Mattes"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 12:33:45 PM
> Subject: Re: The glvnd + mesa update for F25
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:00 AM, Hans de Goede
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:00 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 06-02-17 23:01, Jan Pokorný wrote:
>>
>> On 06/02/17 15:13 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
>>>
>>> There has been a lot of discussions for the last few years about glvnd on
>>> the mesa-devel list and at XDC. This is not Fedora spe
> On 6 Feb 2017, at 22:01, Jan Pokorný wrote:
>
> On 06/02/17 15:13 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
>> There has been a lot of discussions for the last few years about glvnd on
>> the mesa-devel list and at XDC. This is not Fedora specific technology, but
>> a change in how Mesa will work ever
rný"
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 2:32:35 PM
Subject: Re: The glvnd + mesa update for F25
On 06/02/17 05:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
libglvnd is a solution for this it is a vendor neutral
implementation of libGL.so.1 which acts as
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Fabio Alessandro Locati
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 08:38:04AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 09:12:26PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> > >* Why is it not proposed for F26 (now the deadline is over, but IMHO it
>> > >should get in)?
>>
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 08:38:04AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 09:12:26PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > >* Why is it not proposed for F26 (now the deadline is over, but IMHO it
> > >should get in)?
> >
> > Since the plan has always been (as that page shows) to get it i
On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 09:10:26AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> So a lot has been said about $subject and FESco has asked me
> to send a mail to the devel list describing the what and why
> of this change.
Hi Hans, hi everyone,
I have to say that I'm a little bit impressed by the fac
n tell.
-- Jan
> Christian
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Jan Pokorný"
>> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 2:32:35 PM
>> Subject: Re: The glvnd + mesa update for F25
>>
>> On 06/02/17 05:06
Christian Schaller wrote:
> Or in other words if people like yourself actually bothered contributing
> to Nouveau instead of wasting their time other projects.
I am doing these builds:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/kkofler/qtwebengine/package/mesa/
with the locking fixes that are require
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> libglvnd is a solution for this it is a vendor neutral
>> implementation of libGL.so.1 which acts as a dispatcher
>> to one or more glvnd enabled libGL implementations
>> installed on the systems.
>
> By doing so, it decreases performance for
stuff,
we do not discuss major new kernel features here that much either as one
example.
Christian
- Original Message -
> From: "Jan Pokorný"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 2:32:35 PM
> Subject: Re: The glvnd + mesa update fo
On 06/02/17 05:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Hans de Goede wrote:
>> libglvnd is a solution for this it is a vendor neutral
>> implementation of libGL.so.1 which acts as a dispatcher
>> to one or more glvnd enabled libGL implementations
>> installed on the systems.
>
> By doing so, it decreases
- Original Message -
> From: "Kevin Kofler"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 11:06:36 PM
> Subject: Re: The glvnd + mesa update for F25
>
> Hans de Goede wrote:
> > First the what: ever since AMD and NVIDIA st
On 02/06/2017 08:38 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 09:12:26PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> * Why is it not proposed for F26 (now the deadline is over, but IMHO it
>>> should get in)?
>>
>> Since the plan has always been (as that page shows) to get it into F25,
>> which would
On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 09:12:26PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >* Why is it not proposed for F26 (now the deadline is over, but IMHO it
> >should get in)?
>
> Since the plan has always been (as that page shows) to get it into F25,
> which would not make it a F26 change.
There's a big Change pro
Hans de Goede wrote:
> First the what: ever since AMD and NVIDIA started shipping
> their own Linux drivers we have had multiple competing
> implementations of libGL.so.1 (and friends) where the way
> the linker works means that there can be only one.
> This has made installing AMD or NVIDIA's driv
On Sun, 2017-02-05 at 09:10 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> This also mostly explains the why of this change,
> except for why also bring it to Fedora 25 and not
> just to Fedora 26 and later?
>
> The main reason for this is a non-technical reason,
> we (as in the Fedora project) have quite vocally
Hi,
On 05-02-17 20:35, Christian Dersch wrote:
Hi all,
On 02/05/2017 09:10 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
This also mostly explains the why of this change,
except for why also bring it to Fedora 25 and not
just to Fedora 26 and later?
The main reason for this is a non-technical reason,
we (as in t
Everybody has made some valid points, but as far as pushing to F25
stable goes, there may be an undetermined number of people who
-unaware of this discussion and for whatever reason- already have
libglvnd and relevant packages installed from testing. I'm not sure
that someone who was advised in a f
Hi all,
On 02/05/2017 09:10 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> This also mostly explains the why of this change,
> except for why also bring it to Fedora 25 and not
> just to Fedora 26 and later?
>
> The main reason for this is a non-technical reason,
> we (as in the Fedora project) have quite vocally
>
On 02/05/2017 09:10 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi All,
So a lot has been said about $subject and FESco has asked me
to send a mail to the devel list describing the what and why
of this change.
My view: This change is way too radical to apply it to a distribution
midst lifetime of its release.
On 02/05/2017 03:10 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi All,
So a lot has been said about $subject and FESco has asked me
to send a mail to the devel list describing the what and why
of this change.
There's two issues here that are important not to conflate: whether the
glvnd update should go into f2
23 matches
Mail list logo
