<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#c6">Comment # 6</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:emil.l.velikov@gmail.com" title="Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>"> Emil Velikov</a> <pre>(In reply to Chuck Atkins from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=94086#c5">comment #5</a>) > So, based on our discussion, I believe I've addressed this in the attached > patch now by adding an --enable-gallium-xlib-glx option to specify gallium > or classic xlib-glx implementation. I gave it this behavior instead of the > osmesa approach of --enable-xlib-glx and --enable-gallium-xlib-glx being > competing options in order to stay consistent with how the other GLX options > work; i.e. --enable-foo turns on foo with default bar1 implementation and > --enable-bar2-foo changes the implementation to bar2. Invalid > configurations for enabling the gallium-xlib-glx implementation will produce > configure errors but there is no conflicting way to specify both classic and > gallium xlib-glx implementations. I'd rather not do that, as the current "enable foo when bar is on" feels quite magic. Sometimes it gives you a warning although in all honestly, I doubt (m)any people really look at those. I would really want to nuke them altogether and make the configure shorter and cleaner. A bunch of comments coming in a second, but for next round please send the patch to the mesa-dev mailing list (ideally via git send-email). Thanks</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>