[Mesa-dev] RFC: Drop glew from mesa

[Brian Paul]

Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Brian Paul <brianp at vmware.com> wrote:
>> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:07 AM, José Fonseca <jfonseca at vmware.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 07:36 -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
>>>>> Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Jakob Bornecrantz
>>>>>> <wallbraker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Since we don't have any progs in mesa that uses glew anymore is it
>>>>>>> okay if we drop it? I have attached a patch which drops it its a bit
>>>>>>> big so I packed it. And here is the change thingy:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  configs/beos           |    2 +-
>>>>>>>  configs/darwin         |    2 +-
>>>>>>>  configs/default        |    4 +-
>>>>>>>  configs/freebsd-dri    |    2 +-
>>>>>>>  configs/linux-cell     |    2 +-
>>>>>>>  configs/linux-dri-xcb  |    2 +-
>>>>>>>  configs/linux-indirect |    2 +-
>>>>>>>  configure.ac           |    2 +-
>>>>>>>  include/GL/glew.h      |14435
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>  include/GL/glxew.h     | 1476 -----
>>>>>>>  include/GL/wglew.h     | 1247 -----
>>>>>>>  src/SConscript         |    1 -
>>>>>>>  src/glew/LICENSE.txt   |   73 -
>>>>>>>  src/glew/Makefile      |   54 -
>>>>>>>  src/glew/SConscript    |   69 -
>>>>>>>  src/glew/glew.c        |14320
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>  src/glew/glewinfo.c    | 8441 ----------------------------
>>>>>>>  src/glew/visualinfo.c  | 1173 ----
>>>>>>>  18 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 41299 deletions(-)
>>>>>> This got stuck in the moderation queue, resending without the patch.
>>>>> Looks good.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it would be handy to have glew in the mesa-demos tree so that we
>>>>> don't all have find/install the latest version.
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> And glut, could we move glut to demos too? It would make building on
>>>> windows easy again.
>>> glut might be something that deserves its own repo since some people
>>> use Kilgard's glut as their system glut. Requiring them to get that
>>> from a demos package seems a little odd. But splitting it out of the
>>> main mesa package seems nice, if not just for licensing reasons.
>> I'd be OK with that, but please don't remove it until glut is set up
>> somewhere else, either in the demo repo or a new repo.
>>
>> I could move the glew sources into the demo tree but someone else will have
>> to setup the automake stuff.
> 
> I'm sure we can also make automake detect if glu and glut is installed
> and use the system ones instead of the ones shipping within the demos
> repo (also overridden with a option).
> 
> Can we do the same to glu and glw?

Actually, I'd like to take a little time to let things settle down a 
bit before moving GLU and GLUT out of the Mesa tree.  I'm still 
cleaning up loose ends from the changes we've made so far.

Also, I like being able to build all these libs at once and point 
LD_LIBRARY_PATH to one place to be sure I'm getting all the libraries 
I expect.  Having 3 or 4 different locations for all this stuff isn't 
going to be as convenient for some of us.  Let me think about it.


> Giving "--disable-glu --disable-glw --disable-glut" as arguments to
> configure is getting old.

Do you do that just to reduce compile time?

-Brian