[Mesa3d-dev] Missing X_GLXvop_BindTexImageEXT
keith at tungstengraphics.com
Thu Mar 16 03:55:52 PST 2006
Dave Airlie wrote:
>> It seems to me that whatever reason Xorg needs to build mesa for (I'm
>> guessing the indirect GLX software rasterizer) is a mistake.
>> If mesa is to be built, it should be built within the tree it is
>> developed. That might mean that Mesa should learn how to build itself
>> in a form suitable for use as X.org's internal rasterizer, or better
>> still now that we have AIGLX approaching, that Mesa grows a DRI
>> software-only rasterizer that Xorg can use when a hardware driver for
>> AIGLX isn't available.
> We actually did plan on that, but talking at XDC its a lot harder to do
> than you'd think, as you've got no DRM or sarea, so you have to fake
> them up..
One thing that springs to mind is that the justification for having a
live version of Mesa in X.org isn't as strong as it was in the DRI days
-- the DRI tree imported mesa for use in all the hardware drivers, so
getting an uptodate tree and co-developing Mesa and drivers made a lot
In the case of X.org, OTOH, you are *only* talking about the software
rasterizer for Indirect GLX. I don't think it's unreasonable to say
that the policy could change to make that track the Mesa stable branch
or even just to track Mesa releases.
The justification that has been mentioned (you need regular updates to
get eyes to find bugs) only works if you have lots of people using the
code. Especially with AIGLX now merged, software-rasterized indirect
GLX is looking like a fallback on a fallback -- not that many people
will hit this path, so the justification for being on the bleeding edge
isn't that strong.
More information about the xorg