[Mesa-dev] [PATCH v2] gbm: Replace GBM_DRIVERS_PATH with LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH

Matt Turner mattst88 at gmail.com
Thu Jul 24 20:19:07 PDT 2014

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25/07/14 03:14, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 24/07/14 22:08, Dylan Baker wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, July 24, 2014 09:32:38 PM Emil Velikov wrote:
>>>>> On 22/07/14 19:43, Dylan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> GBM_DRIVERS_PATH is not documented, and only used to set the location of
>>>>>> gbm drivers, while LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH is used for everything else, and
>>>>>> is documented.
>>>>>> Generally this split leads to confusion as to why gbm doesn't work.
>>>>>> This patch makes LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH the main variable, but uses
>>>>>> GBM_DRIVERS_PATH as a fallback if LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH is NULL.
>>>>> Dylan if we're going the LIBGL road, can we please use the GBM variable
>>>>> first and then fallback to the LIBGL one ? This way things won't break for
>>>>> people using the former. Meanwhile I'm writing docs/gbm.html with some
>>>>> rough description what gbm is and all the env vars used :-)
>>>> Is there a usecase for having a seperate GBM_DRIVERS_PATH?
>>> Guess we'll know that when people come complaining that it broke their setup.
>>> It will be piglit's "OMG this broke my setup - revert revert. But this has
>>> been on the ML for xx days", story all over again.
>> Isn't this a vacuous problem? The drivers GBM opens are the same
>> drivers specified by LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH, and there's never been any
>> difference or way to install "GBM drivers" elsewhere. I.e., no one
>> ever has specified something different for GBM_DRIVERS_PATH and
>> LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH intentionally.
> Still don't see what the problem is: you wanted LIBGL to control do world -
> sure, go ahead. All I asked for is to not rub the middle finger in someone's
> face just because they never came to personally tell you that's the way they
> do things. Essentially I'm trying to find a compromise that works for everyone
> yet you come with the "no one" and "ever" statements, which are a bit silly
> IMHO, especially in the context of an open-source project.
> I'm quite "enjoying" this bike-shedding. People just refuse that others may
> have with different work flow than theirs. Well... I'm off this topic enjoy
> your "world domination" plan :P

Tell me how it would be possible to have different values for
GBM_DRIVERS_PATH and LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH, when they're loading the same
drivers. If you can't do that, then you're just wasting bandwidth with
these emails.

I'm not just claiming that I've never heard of people doing this. I'm
claiming that it's completely nonsensical to do it.

More information about the mesa-dev mailing list