Hi Rohan! On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 04:24:43PM +0100, Rohan Garg wrote: > [...] > > I concur here. It was correctly pointed out in another reply that by using > OpenGL we're specifically catering to software that doesn't support > GLES while making performance worse for mature applications that > do implement both OpenGL and GLES. The reality of the situation is that > the market currently favors GLES over GL on ARM SBC's, delivered with > proprietary blobs. I think a more pragmatic view of this reality would be to > deliver the best FOSS user experience that's possible with the proprietary > drivers while the open source drivers are being improved. To that extent, > by switching to GLES we improve the overall situation since OpenGL > applications can fall back to software rendering via mesa on platforms > where mesa does not support the GPU. Here I agree with Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton’s opinion [1]. I think we should aim to provide the best possible experience with the free software ecosystem. The experience with proprietary drivers should be the second priority, if priority at all. > By choosing to build Qt with GLES on ARM64, we make Debian a more > attractive platform for vendors who'd like to target ARM64 boards. We should make it attractive for vendors to release their code under a free software (DFSG) license. That way anyone would be able to hack on it and add missing support for a different OpenGL variant, if needed. That said, as Lisandro announced, we will be happy to make any decision if there is either a consensus or a TC decision about it. [1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/11/msg00622.html -- Dmitry Shachnev
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature