and the way of compiling dri Re: devel tree
Sergio Monteiro Basto
sergio at sergiomb.no-ip.org
Fri Dec 17 13:05:49 PST 2004
On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 13:33 -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
> Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 18:05 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> >>>my patches are for Mesa HEAD and what I though is
> >>>Mesa and drm part of xorg cvs will be a symbolic link of Mesa HEAD and
> >>>drm HEAD.
> >>>And that is, what I am asking for, a new xorg devel-tree.
> >>>And may be, I will try ask this again with better English.
> >>Xorg's devel tree is Xorg HEAD. Mesa will be removed from Xorg's xc/extras/
> >>tree as soon as humanly possible. Don't worry about the copy of Mesa in xc;
> >>if you want updated Mesa or DRI drivers build them from Mesa.
> >>The only reason you might want Mesa HEAD in Xorg HEAD is to build a
> >>bleeding-edge libGLcore, which most people don't care about.
> > bleeding-edge libGLcore never heard before !
> > Googleing doesn't help must, so where I can find some docs about the
> > libGLcore and bleeding-edge ?
> The issue is whether you want to use Mesa's CVS head/trunk code (aka
> bleeding edge) or the stable branch (labelled "mesa_6_2_branch"
Mesa's CVS head/trunk code, of course. If I want test lastest dri code ,
I need to compile xorg with Mesa's CVS head/trunk code.
"the way to build the newest DRI
drivers is with the 'linux-dri-x86' target in Mesa CVS."
give me 2 differents libGLs and libGLUs
and what is the correct libGL ?
and GLUT why glut doesn't enter on xorg ?
Anyway, I think the DRI developers must understand, how Xorg compiles
Mesa else there dri drives becomes uncompilable (at least in my $ARCH)
or definitely dri drives are compiled out of Xorg, but in this case Mesa
miss the building of libGLcore!, so don't see how is it possible.
just left me, the first choice :)
end of though,
Conclusion if you agree, we could create the "trunk2" one copy of xorg
cvs with last Mesa. ie
mv http://cvs.freedesktop.org/dri/xc to
and copy http://cvs.freedesktop.org/xorg/xc to
thanks for your time,
> On the trunk we might add/remove/change source files at any time.
> Unfortunately, this can upset the build process within the X/DRI trees.
> For that reason (and general code stability), most people are better
> off using the stable Mesa branch in the X tree. We never add/remove
> source files on the stable branch.
> The shaderobjects.c file that's been causing you trouble only exists
> in the Mesa CVS trunk, not the stable branch.
> IMHO, the X/DRI trees should generally stick with the stable Mesa
> branch. If you were to patch the Xserver's Makefiles to use the Mesa
> trunk code, you'd be forcing people to use potentially unstable code.
> That would probably cause some grief.
> > What I am more concerned is about the correct way of compile and install
> > X11 and Mesa and testing last version.
> If you're determined to use the latest version of everything, then you
> have to be prepared to deal with some problems and often fix or work
> around them yourself.
More information about the xorg