[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 0/6] Overhaul of Gallium configure options

[Michel Dänzer]

On Die, 2011-06-14 at 09:45 -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote: 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 18:25 +0200, Marek Olšák wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > This series reworks some of our configure options to make Gallium
> > > easier to configure.
> > > 
> > > First, there is a new option --with-gallium-drivers=DIRS, which
> > > replaces the current heap of options --enable-gallium-DRIVER.
> > > --disable-gallium is removed as well, instead,
> > > --with-gallium-drivers= without parameters should be used to
> > > disable Gallium.
> > > 
> > > --enable-gallium-egl is removed. having --enable-egl and
> > > --with-gallium-drivers=somedriver is sufficient.
> > > 
> > > --with-state-trackers is removed as well. The list of state
> > > trackers is automatically deduced from the --enable-API options
> > > (the vega,egl state trackers) and --with-driver=dri|xlib (the
> > > dri,glx state trackers). Some state trackers lack an enable flag
> > > now, so these two have been added to make the list complete:
> > > --enable-xorg and --enable-d3d1x.
> > > 
> > > In order to be able to "git bisect run" through this change, you
> > > can specify both the old and new options at the same time. Those
> > > that are unsupported are ignored.
> > > 
> > > Other than that, I am enabling r600g by default and removing r300g
> > > and r600g from scons. I am not a fan of having multiple build
> > > systems and most people prefer autoconf anyway. It's not like
> > > anybody needs to build those drivers on Windows.
> > 
> > I did use r600g + scons for the little bit of work I did there, and
> > if I
> > went back to it, it would continue to be with scons...
> > 
> > Is there a significant cost to you having it there?
> > 
> > Keith
> 
> Ditto. I've been building r600g on linux with scons too -- scons it's
> much better for continuous integration/testing, given one doesn't need
> to do make clean everytime, just to ensure the dependencies are
> computed correctly. 
> 
> Given that autoconf will never support MSVC, if people don't like
> multiple build systems, then autoconf+gmake is definely not the one to
> bet on.
> 
> I've been (slowly) trying to get scons to build everything, and plan
> to do so. So that scons can be a viable alternative eventually.

That would certainly seem like a better solution. As another example,
scons is currently the only useful way to build 32 and 64 bit binaries
from a single tree.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer           |                http://www.vmware.com
Libre software enthusiast         |          Debian, X and DRI developer