and the way of compiling dri Re: devel tree

[Keith Whitwell]

Brian Paul wrote:
> Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 18:05 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
>>
>>>> my patches are for Mesa HEAD and what I though is
>>>> Mesa and drm part of xorg cvs will be a symbolic link of Mesa HEAD and
>>>> drm HEAD.
>>>>
>>>> And that is, what I am asking for, a new xorg devel-tree.
>>>> And may be, I will try ask this again with better English.
>>>
>>>
>>> Xorg's devel tree is Xorg HEAD.  Mesa will be removed from Xorg's 
>>> xc/extras/ tree as soon as humanly possible.  Don't worry about the 
>>> copy of Mesa in xc; if you want updated Mesa or DRI drivers build 
>>> them from Mesa.
>>>
>>> The only reason you might want Mesa HEAD in Xorg HEAD is to build a 
>>> bleeding-edge libGLcore, which most people don't care about.
>>
>>
>>
>> bleeding-edge libGLcore never heard before !
>> Googleing doesn't help must, so where I can find some docs about the
>> libGLcore and bleeding-edge ? 
> 
> 
> The issue is whether you want to use Mesa's CVS head/trunk code (aka 
> bleeding edge) or the stable branch (labelled "mesa_6_2_branch" currently).
> 
> On the trunk we might add/remove/change source files at any time. 
> Unfortunately, this can upset the build process within the X/DRI trees.

> For that reason (and general code stability), most people are better off 
> using the stable Mesa branch in the X tree.  We never add/remove source 
> files on the stable branch.
> 
> The shaderobjects.c file that's been causing you trouble only exists in 
> the Mesa CVS trunk, not the stable branch.
> 
> IMHO, the X/DRI trees should generally stick with the stable Mesa 
> branch.  If you were to patch the Xserver's Makefiles to use the Mesa 
> trunk code, you'd be forcing people to use potentially unstable code. 
>  That would probably cause some grief.

Note that the X tree includes a copy of the most recent stable Mesa 
release in extras/Mesa, and is set up to build this.  This is what the X 
makefiles are validated against and it doesn't make sense for them to 
work with anything different.

There was a time when we (temporarily) abandoned this practice in the 
DRI tree in order to deal with rapid change and progress in the Mesa 
tree - but that time has long past and there's no reason for people to 
keep on trying to work that way.  I really don't understand why people 
are still trying to do this.

>> What I am more concerned is about the correct way of compile and install
>> X11 and Mesa and testing last version.
> 
> 
> If you're determined to use the latest version of everything, then you 
> have to be prepared to deal with some problems and often fix or work 
> around them yourself.

If you want to compile development Mesa, then compile it standalone.

Otherwise, just use the stable version of Mesa you got with Xorg.

Keith