On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia <jerem...@freedesktop.org> wrote: > > On Aug 10, 2012, at 09:54, Alex Deucher <alexdeuc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia >> <jerem...@freedesktop.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 10, 2012, at 03:37, Zhigang Gong <zhigang.g...@linux.intel.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> to try a full functional xserver with glamor, it’s recommended to use the >>>> following xserver version: >>>> >>>> commit a615b90cab7569fae9d123e4da1d3373c871d84b >>>> >>>> Author: Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> >>>> >>>> Date: Wed Mar 14 11:32:36 2012 -0700 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bump version number to 1.12.99.0 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Now that 1.12 has branched, reset the version on master to a >>>> >>>> development number. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Why is such an old server version recommended? Surely tip of >>> server-1.12-branch is superior to this branch point+1 on master? And I'd >>> really expect tip of master to be a better candidate than that given the >>> development nature of glamor. Can you please clarify? >> >> That should be fine. The commit is question is just the most recent >> commit on master that still works prior to the changes that broke the >> module ordering that broke glamor. > > I think you're mistaken. The commit referenced is just xorg-server-1.12.0 + > version change. It is significantly before the module loading changes.
That was just an uneducated guess on my part. Glamor does work on older xservers... I'll shut up now. Alex _______________________________________________ xorg@lists.x.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
