[ANNOUNCE] glamor 0.5.0

Alex Deucher alexdeucher at gmail.com
Fri Aug 10 10:02:36 PDT 2012


On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
<jeremyhu at freedesktop.org> wrote:
>
> On Aug 10, 2012, at 09:54, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
>> <jeremyhu at freedesktop.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 10, 2012, at 03:37, Zhigang Gong <zhigang.gong at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> to try a full functional xserver with glamor, it’s recommended to use the
>>>> following xserver version:
>>>>
>>>> commit a615b90cab7569fae9d123e4da1d3373c871d84b
>>>>
>>>> Author: Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com>
>>>>
>>>> Date:   Wed Mar 14 11:32:36 2012 -0700
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   Bump version number to 1.12.99.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   Now that 1.12 has branched, reset the version on master to a
>>>>
>>>>   development number.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is such an old server version recommended?  Surely tip of server-1.12-branch is superior to this branch point+1 on master?  And I'd really expect tip of master to be a better candidate than that given the development nature of glamor.  Can you please clarify?
>>
>> That should be fine.  The commit is question is just the most recent
>> commit on master that still works prior to the changes that broke the
>> module ordering that broke glamor.
>
> I think you're mistaken.  The commit referenced is just xorg-server-1.12.0 + version change.  It is significantly before the module loading changes.

That was just an uneducated guess on my part.  Glamor does work on
older xservers...  I'll shut up now.

Alex



More information about the xorg mailing list