Re: more ppc patches
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 02:50:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Actually, the MANIFEST.powerpc predates the patches to re-enable libOSMesa
> > and libxrx. So at least either the MANIFEST or the patches are wrong.
> > Should have another version in a few hours.
>
> I don't think I ever applied those patches, sorry.
They're in the tarball. libOSMesa at least DID build properly; no word
on libxrx yet. I need a better build machine, dammit.
> > The TDFX problem turned out to be the ordering of two #if's.
>
> I take it this is fixed now, then? I'll rebuild.
OK. I'll have a new PPC manifest soon too.
> On the other hand, if these patches are so alpha that Ani's unwilling to
> properly #if protect them, then maybe we shouldn't be using them. If it's
> too much work for you to make them portable yourself, then you may want to
> only send me the ones that he's done enough with to be able to choke down
> making them portable.
>
> I really don't understand his stubborness on this point; they've got to be
> properly protected for submission upstream anyway.
These patches fix a severe problem; however, the proper fix requires
kernel work that is being discussed, and no one has yet figured out how
to do it properly.
I.E. there is a right way to do this, and this is not the right way -
but right now it is the only way.
As such, they are not meant for submission upstream; instead the proper
solution will be, once the kernel parts of it have been implemented.
Meanwhile, if you want the drivers to work at all, you have to use
these patches.
That's why I consider applying them on only one arch acceptable.
Dan
/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University |
| dan@debian.org | | dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
Reply to: