and the way of compiling dri Re: devel tree

[Ely Levy]

shouldn't http://freeglut.sourceforge.net/
get in instead of glut anyhow?

Ely Levy
System group
Hebrew University
Jerusalem Israel



On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote:

> On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 13:33 -0700, 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).
>
> Mesa's CVS head/trunk code, of course. If I want test lastest dri code ,
> I need to compile xorg with Mesa's CVS head/trunk code.
>
> the other
> "the way to build the newest DRI
> drivers is with the 'linux-dri-x86' target in Mesa CVS."
> give me 2 differents libGLs and libGLUs
> and what is the correct libGL ?
>
> and GLUT why glut doesn't enter on xorg ?
>
> Anyway, I think the DRI developers must understand, how Xorg compiles
> Mesa else there dri drives becomes uncompilable (at least in my $ARCH)
> or definitely dri drives are compiled out of Xorg, but in this case Mesa
> miss the building of libGLcore!, so don't see how is it possible.
>
> just left me, the first choice :)
> end of though,
> Conclusion if you agree, we could create the "trunk2" one copy of xorg
> cvs with last Mesa. ie
> mv http://cvs.freedesktop.org/dri/xc to
> http://cvs.freedesktop.org/dri/xc.old
>
> and copy http://cvs.freedesktop.org/xorg/xc to
> http://cvs.freedesktop.org/dri/xc
>
> thanks for your time,
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > -Brian
> --
> Sérgio M.B.
>
> _______________________________________________
> xorg mailing list
> xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
>