[Xorg] The big multiconsole nasty

[Daniel Stone]

On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 01:12:04PM +0200, Egbert Eich wrote:
> Adam Jackson writes:
>  > I would posit, however, that OS-independence in drivers is a false economy.  
>  > OSes are cheap, get a multi-boot rig and compile them all directly.  Or use a 
>  > cross-compiler.  From the perspective of the graphics card manufacturer, 
>  > you'd need to have the target platform around for testing anyway if you're 
>  > going to declare it a supported platform.
> 
> Well, do we believe the average developer will set up multiple
> OSes or set up cross compile environments to provide binaries 
> for all supported OSes? What about the non-free OSes we support?

I believe that most graphic card manufacturers are capable of doing
this.

>  > Finally, if all else fails, it may be possible to keep the old loader around 
>  > specifically for obstreperous vendors who don't feel like adding another 
>  > machine to the compile farm.  This would need some hacking to make work - in 
>  > my tests the two module loaders are _not_ cross-callable - but it should be 
>  > doable.
>  > 
> That may be an option. Currently symbol names from the dll modules cannot
> be exported to the internal loader.

Does that mean it cannot be done?

> I also would like to call for a careful evaluation of the situation.
> Most of the people here belong to the Linux community so they probably
> don't care. 

No, this is not true (the not caring bit).

-- 
Daniel Stone                                            <daniel at freedesktop.org>
freedesktop.org: powering your desktop                http://www.freedesktop.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20040707/10d4c1aa/attachment.pgp>