<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Multiple conflicting libGL libraries installed" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94086#c2">Comment # 2</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Multiple conflicting libGL libraries installed" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94086">bug 94086</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:chuck.atkins@kitware.com" title="Chuck Atkins <chuck.atkins@kitware.com>"> Chuck Atkins</a> <pre>> Fwiw I'd rather have a configure error, if one tries to build conflicting > (at install time) files. The glx options are implemented differently than the osmesa ones, even though they try to accomplish the same thing. The osmesa options translate to "enable classic osmesa" or "enable gallium osmesa", but the glx options, on the other hand, translate to "enable glx period, (defaulting to dri-glx)" and "use xlib-glx instead of dri-glx". After digging through the code a bit more, I believe my patch is perhaps not the right approach. Is "classic" synonymous with dri? There seems to currently be 3 GLX implementations: dri-glx in src/glx, classic-xlib-glx in src/mesa/x11, and gallium-xlib-glx in src/gallium/state_trackers/glx/xlib. What is not clear to me now is under what situation should each of these implementations actually be built. Currently both src/mesa/x11 and state_trackers/glx/xlib are getting built, which is the root of the problem I'm trying to address. So what are the conditions then that src/mesa/x11 should be built vs when src/gallium/state_trackers/glx/xlib ? Given that I can fix the patch accordingly.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>