Depending on external libraries

[Keith Packard]

--==_Exmh_1610588395P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


Around 10 o'clock on Mar 11, "Kendall Bennett" wrote:

> I don't think you can remove Mesa from the core X server source code. In 
> fact I would argue that Mesa and DRI should in fact be merged *into* the 
> core X server source code tree

What would be ideal is for the Mesa project to "own" the GL pieces up to a 
stable ABI boundary and for X.org to ship only things on the other side.

I'm not quite sure where that boundary should live though; the DRI 3D 
drivers and the X 2D drivers continue to have strong cross dependencies 
which would make it pretty infeasible to ship just the 2D parts and expect 
people to find the precise version of the DRI bits that matched.

And, the Mesa folks don't seem all that interested in also supporting 2D
features like video and weird output modes, so we can't rely on them
to provide the 2D driver on their own.

I suspect we'll be dealing with DRI integration for some time to come, and
people will end up selecting the video driver they use from X.org, DRI and
GATOS depending on what features they think are most important.  I don't 
know how to solve this problem with our current architecture, but I hope 
that by working cooperatively with the other projects we can make some 
progress in the near term.

-keith



--==_Exmh_1610588395P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.3.1 11/28/2001

iD8DBQFAULjjQp8BWwlsTdMRAqImAKDSE5ggtH5ee64cR0CCFiWJadck2ACeM1uU
maaiHV8rgzNxp4n+ZnyW0nA=
=rzTK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--==_Exmh_1610588395P--