[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] Export TLS support in gl.pc

[tom fogal]

Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net> writes:
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 18:04:54 -0700, tom fogal <tfogal at sci.utah.edu> wrote:
> > More background:
> >
> >   http://www.mail-archive.com/mesa3d-dev@lists.sourceforge.net/msg12473.html
> >   http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2009-November/003411.html
> >
> > This is just the export, we don't autodetect it yet.
> 
> What is this patch for?  According to the second mail quoted, a TLS
> loader works for both TLS and non-TLS drivers -- that is to say,
> the X Server's loader should always default to having TLS support,

It's vaguely alluded to in this mail, too, which I probably should have
linked:

  http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2009-November/003361.html

but also Dan mentions in the first link that if we start TLS-ing all of
our drivers arbitrarily, it's going to break w/ X because X doesn't do
the autodetection currently.  Now that you make me re-read, this seems
to be at odds with Ian's comments about a TLS-server supporting both
TLS and non-TLS drivers.  Am I missing something?

> regardless of whether the (probably not yet built) drivers are built
> for it.  Having the Mesa build follow the X Server in terms of using
> TLS by default would make sense to me, though.

Yeah, but as you mention ... Mesa can't follow the X server because the
X server isn't built yet.

Yes, I agree that if a TLS-X can load TLS-drivers *and* no-TLS-drivers,
then X should autodetect TLS and enable it whenever possible, since
it's arguably better.  Then we can make Mesa do the same, and it
shouldn't be a big deal.

Ajax/Dan's comments give me pause about being aggressive in the X
server, though.

I can say that my long term goal is to get *Mesa* more aggressive about
enabling TLS, in an X-free universe.  I have users using OSMesa who get
bit when SELinux is enabled, and I want it to work "out of the box."

-tom