[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 06/28] configure: rename --with-{egl-, }platforms

[Ilia Mirkin]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 December 2016 at 18:24, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 13 December 2016 at 18:06, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> A workaround which just make to mind:
>>>>>  - keep --with-egl-platforms around and it's heuristics (which will
>>>>> also be applied for --with-platforms).
>>>>>  - keep the --with-egl-platforms decisions for EGL only, and let one
>>>>> override it via --with-platforms. Warn as the latter happens.
>>>>>  - warn for the deprecation of --with-egl-platforms
>>>>
>>>> And really --with-platforms is --with-egl-platforms +
>>>> --with-vulkan-platforms (which I realize doesn't presently exist).
>>>>
>>>> And the reason you don't want to add it is that you're afraid someone
>>>> will do something like
>>>>
>>>> --with-egl-platforms=drm --with-vulkan-platforms=x11
>>>>
>>>> and it's a pain to make it so that EGL only has drm and vulkan only
>>>> has x11? And eventually one might also want --with-vdpau-platforms,
>>>> --with-vaapi-platforms, --with-whoknowswhat-platforms, and you don't
>>>> want to keep adding them, since the chances that you *really* want
>>>> those to be different for legitimate reasons is ... low.
>>>>
>>>> Is that right?
>>>>
>>> Precisely.
>>>
>>> If there is a legitimate reason, one can do a second mesa build... as
>>> we do for DRI vs XLIB powered libGL, classic vs gallium OSMesa, etc.
>>> Afacit having things configurable at such state is not supported by
>>> either of the three build systems nor something that will scale - be
>>> that from code or test POV.
>>
>> That all makes sense. I think that keeping --with-egl-platforms as a
>> hidden option into eternity (or at least for a while until it becomes
>> very unlikely to cross a bisect boundary) is my preferred solution,
>> which sets the default value of --with-platforms. If you set both,
>> then --with-platforms wins. And if you want to really be nice, warn
>> about it.
>>
>> Is that roughly what you had in mind with your last suggestion?
>>
> Barring a "s/eternity/2-20 releases" - yes,. it's exactly what I was
> thinking/talking about.

Sounds good. The remaining question is whether we really do want a
single --with-platforms, or the individual ones, and actually make it
work for the individual ones to have different things. I don't think
I'm qualified to answer that question, but I think that's something
that should be discussed with the relevant stake-holders.

Cheers,

  -ilia