On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:46:21PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 02:06:27PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > >... > > Hmm, so I'm not sure this reflects the actual state of the art wrt dual Qt > > stacks as it existed in Ubuntu at the time Ubuntu Touch was sunsetted. > >... > Is there some rationale documented somewhere why this wasn't used in > Ubuntu for the arm64 port? Documented - no. The rationale was that the X stack on ARM64 in Ubuntu was enabled specifically to support mobile, where, just like for armhf, the relevant accelerated drivers that needed to be supported were GLES-only Android drivers. It was only on x86 that it was worth the extra effort to support dual Qt stacks, and that was because the goldfish Android emulator only provided accelerated GLES - we obviously weren't going to force GLES on all x86 desktop users in order to support goldfish, so that meant building both variants. > arm64 in Ubuntu (including the current LTS) does diverge from the arm64 > in Debian - but Ubuntu uses ES-only, not the dual stack solution you are > referring to. Up to now there hasn't been sufficient justification for worrying in the other direction about Ubuntu not having full GL support on arm64. But since Debian is contending with this question, I think the previous Ubuntu dual-stack implementation is a solid solution and I would be happy if Ubuntu dropped its delta on the Qt packages as a side-effect. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature