[Mesa-dev] [PATCH mesa 0/7] remove upstreamed specs

[Eric Engestrom]

On Thursday, 2017-11-23 16:32:06 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 23 November 2017 at 16:04, Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom at imgtec.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 2017-11-23 13:32:47 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
> >> Hi Eric,
> >>
> >> On 22 November 2017 at 17:59, Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom at imgtec.com> wrote:
> >> > A recent thread [1] made me check our local specs to see which ones were
> >> > upstream. This series removes the ones that are identical upstream
> >> > (modulo "TBD" extension numbers in some cases).
> >> >
> >> > There are a few more specs left that are upstream, but have typo fixes
> >> > that I'm going to submit to Khronos, and I'll remove the local copies
> >> > once the fixes have been upstreamed:
> >> The idea sounds great, just some minor comments - mostly about
> >> potential deprecation.
> >>
> >> > - EGL_MESA_drm_image
> >> The extension, lacks information about error handling (et al) and is
> >> no longer used.
> >> There is even an extra bitmask in eglmesaext.h that's quite meh thing to do.
> >> Perhaps we should consider officially deprecating it as hinted earlier [1]
> >>
> >> [1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2017-June/161575.html
> >
> > What does "deprecate" mean exactly, in this context? Move to docs/specs/OLD/?
> > Should anything be done in the upstream specs to flag them as deprecated?
> >
> There is the "obsolete" status [1] that we can use. Overall I'm thinking about:
>  - Annotate the extension as Obsolete in the spec file.
>  - Add printf "Warning using a deprecated extension %s. Will be
> removed with Mesa version AA"
>  - Clearly document ^^ as part of the release.
>  - Remove the relevant code as expected.

Thanks for the info :)
However, I don't feel comfortable doing this; someone else who knows the
extensions and their implementations & users should do this.

> 
> [1] https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenGL-Registry/blob/master/docs/template.txt#L203
> 
> 
> >>
> >> > - GLX_MESA_release_buffers
> >> Extension is implemented only for Xlib based libGL. The DRI codepath
> >> has a TODO for at least 7 years.
> >> Worth checking if anyone uses it and not just deprecate the extension?
> >
> > I don't know much about GLX, so I'll let someone else do this.
> >
> Ack. in the interim, can you grep your systems for any existing users?

I'm not sure what you mean? Grepping `strings(1)` of installed apps
to find one checking for these extensions?

> Looking from the opposite end - quick search shows that only Mesa has
> implemented the said extensions.

I checked the powervr codebase as well, no MESA_* extension is
implemented at all.

> 
> If there's no users and no implementation*, despite the extensions
> being available for years ...
> 
> -Emil