Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-commit - Re: [SM-Commit] GIT changes to master grimoire by Ethan Grammatikidis (89dedea8a196888e0d61887d2b2338a6ab37d292)

sm-commit AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Source Mage code commit list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: George Sherwood <pilot AT beernabeer.com>
  • To: sm-commit AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Commit] GIT changes to master grimoire by Ethan Grammatikidis (89dedea8a196888e0d61887d2b2338a6ab37d292)
  • Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 06:42:54 -0600

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:53:06 +0000
"Ethan Grammatikidis" <eekee57 AT fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:43:22 +0100, "Jaka Kranjc" <smgl AT lynxlynx.info>
> said:
> > On Tuesday 20 of January 2009 21:25:07 Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
> > > commit 23d238f863e383287b0c526ab9bef3ac54b2cff1
> > > Author: Ethan Grammatikidis <eekee57 AT fastmail.fm>
> > > Commit: Ethan Grammatikidis <eekee57 AT fastmail.fm>
> > >
> > > xorg-server: made mesa header path patch optional
> > Why? Does it have bad side effects? It was added to fix a bug and
> > now that one
> > is again possible, since the user can say no. IIRC the path is
> > added to the
> > end of the list, so any previous file should be found first.
>
> Forgot reply to all, sorry.
>
> Yes it had bad effects, no I don't know why. I successfully built
> xorg-server before the patch was installed, finding through trial and
> error that one 'build type' choice in mesalib allowed xorg-server to
> build without problems, the other choices did not. I could not build
> xorg-server with the patch.
>
> I haven't finished testing, but the patch is not required for building
> xorg-server with dri and/or glx enabled so long as mesalib was built
> with dri build type. At this point I'm fairly sure building
> xorg-server with dri enabled & mesalib other than dri does not make
> sense. Also if xorg-server is built with no dri or glx options it's
> possible it may not depend on mesalib at all. The dependency may be
> converted to a sub-depends wrapped in a conditional clause in the
> near future.
>
> Also I currently feel like I'll still be defending this when I go to
> my grave. Whatever happened to "we don't patch unless it's
> essential?" Ah well, I suppose nobody had time to research it
> properly. I did some research on it today, didn't find anything
> explicit, just enough to confirm my initial feeling that you build
> both with dri to make it work. I plan to test all combinations of
> mesalib build type with xorg-server dri & glx options. If I find that
> mesalib isn't required for all builds of xorg-server I will be
> removing that patch.
>

Can you explain bad effects? I am running on two machines with the
patch and I don't see anything. My issue is that in stable without dri,
xorg-server will fail. I never found a workaround except to enable dri
with doesn't make sense on a VM that doesn't have any dri drivers. I
don't see how adding an include can make everything to bad for you. On
this computer with a radeon card and dri I don't see any changes at all
to X.

We now have a spell that won't compile unless you force dri which you
may not need.

George

--
George Sherwood
Source Mage GNU/Linux Lead Developer
http://www.sourcemage.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page