Michael D. Crawford wrote:
>
> glxinfo says dri is not available if I remove the library as I did. So I
> rebuilt Mesa and reinstalled it. The full output of glxinfo on my machine
> follows. Note that it says "direct rendering: Yes" but the version strings
> don't match. Does that indicate the
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > The Mesa package in Red Hat 7 won't do DRI with recent XFree86 CVS.
>
> Yep. Its Mesa 3.3/DRI 1.0. XFree86 CVS is Mesa 3.4/DRI 2.0. That has several
> advantages including mostly working on Matrox cards which 1.0 never did (for
> me anyway) and handling
> The Mesa package in Red Hat 7 won't do DRI with recent XFree86 CVS.
Yep. Its Mesa 3.3/DRI 1.0. XFree86 CVS is Mesa 3.4/DRI 2.0. That has several
advantages including mostly working on Matrox cards which 1.0 never did (for
me anyway) and handling things that Mesa 3.3 tried to allocate the odd g
The Mesa package in Red Hat 7 won't do DRI with recent XFree86 CVS.
Michael is quite right in saying he needed to blow it away. The only
way I could get DRI working until recently was to transplant a copy
of libGL.so from the XFree86 build tree into /usr/lib, delete or rename
the Mesa package ver
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:45:09PM +, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> glxinfo says dri is not available if I remove the library as I did. So I
> rebuilt Mesa and reinstalled it. The full output of glxinfo on my machine
> follows. Note that it says "direct rendering: Yes" but the version string
J Sloan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) sez:
> This is a little OT for linux-kernel
Off-topic to debug a new kernel feature that will significantly add to the
competitiveness of Linux on the desktop and in engineering applications?
Remember, my original report was that DRI was reported to be working in bef
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 06:35:43PM +, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> OK, I built XFree86 4.0.2 and DRI seems to be working for me now under
> 2.4.0-ac4. (Starting with 2.4.0, it wouldn't, this is with an ATI XPert 2000
> AGP).
>
> BUT - although /var/log/XFree86.0.log documents the startup of
Michael D. Crawford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> This makes me suspect it's not really working, or else my build of the Mesa-3.4
> library wasn't configured right - but note that if I disable DRI, one of the
> Mesa demos will comment that it's not available.
It sounds as if you're using a Mesa li
OK, I built XFree86 4.0.2 and DRI seems to be working for me now under
2.4.0-ac4. (Starting with 2.4.0, it wouldn't, this is with an ATI XPert 2000
AGP).
BUT - although /var/log/XFree86.0.log documents the startup of DRI, DRM and AGP,
and states the info about their initialization and stuff so t
> Could XFree86 4.0.2 fix this? I had been waiting until the binary packages were
> available from ftp.slackware.com because Patrick Volkerding lays out the
> directories in a slightly different manner that he argues pretty convincingly is
> preferable, but it would be a drag for me to reproduce
Alan Olsen said once upon a time (Sat, 6 Jan 2001):
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
>
> > AGP, VIA support, DRM, and r128 DRM are all compiled in statically rather than
> > as modules.
>
> AGPGART doe *not* work if compiled statically. Compile it as a module.
> You will be much
On Saturday 06 January 2001 10:30 pm, Alan Olsen wrote:
| AGPGART doe *not* work if compiled statically. Compile it as a
| module. You will be much happier. (i.e. It might actually work.) I
| would also compile DRM and the r128 drivers as modules as well.
it's worked fine compiled into the ker
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> AGP, VIA support, DRM, and r128 DRM are all compiled in statically rather than
> as modules.
AGPGART doe *not* work if compiled statically. Compile it as a module.
You will be much happier. (i.e. It might actually work.) I would also
compile DRM
13 matches
Mail list logo
