On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 13:58 -0800, Eric Anholt wrote: > On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:57:45 +1100, Christopher James Halse Rogers <christopher.halse.rogers@canonical.com> wrote: > > Hey all. > > > > There are a couple of things in mesa that we'd like to do for Natty that > > could do with some coördination with Debian-X: > > > > 1) Ship both the classic and gallium versions of r300 & r600, and have > > the DDX select between them based on kms support and an xorg.conf > > setting (default to r300g, as that's the default upstream, and whichever > > r600 driver ends up being default in 7.10). This is not going to be > > accepted upstream, but is, I think, a reasonable distro-patch to retain > > UMS support for radeon while defaulting to the upstream-default driver. > > > > 2) As always, we need more space on the CDs. The DRI drivers are both > > large (~44MB) and contain substantial quantities of common code. Fedora > > at one point linked their DRI drivers with a shared libdricore¹, and I'm > > looking at doing something similar for the gallium drivers. This shaves > > about 30MB off the DRI drivers on AMD64 - down to 12MB, without touching > > the gallium drivers. > > > > Are either of these interesting to debian-x? Should I be committing > > these changes to the debian branches, or keeping them Ubuntu-specific? > > > > Also, > > 3) We'll possibly strip out all the less-used (ie: non-intel, > > non-radeon) DRI drivers into a separate package & add jockey hooks for > > users to install them if needed. That's not going to be so interesting > > for Debian, though. > > I'd like to see libdricore patches pushed upstream as a build option if > it's not too invasive. Fedora dropped them because they got tired of > porting them forward, but I think at the point where two+ distros and > half the mesa developers want the patch in place, we should just shove > it in. Fair enough. I'll see how upstream-friendly I can make them, then submit them.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part