[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: mesag3 <-> xlibmesa-gl / libgl1-mesa-dri <-> xlibmesa-dri / libglu1-mesa <-> libglu1-xorg

On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 17:25 -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 02:41:05AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>  The GLU package is, uhm, I don't know.  At some point I talked with
>  Branden about it, but we never did anything.  The xfree86 (and now the
>  x.org) are the ones duplicating that code.  And this has nothing to do
>  with some "my turf/your turf" thing.  It was more of a "this code
>  works, that code doesn't" thing.  All three packages (libglu1-mesa,
>  libglu1-xorg, xlibmesa-glu) are optional.  The -xorg thing is cute, but
>  someone missed the point of -mesa (and I'm probably to blame).  -mesa
>  is there because at some point there were two implementations shipped
>  with Mesa.  The one by Brian Paul and the one from the OpenGL SI
>  provided by SGI, so there were two packages (libglu1-mesa and
>  libglu1-sgi).  The -sgi one was provided by a package that never made
>  it thru the NEW queue and after some months I got sick of waiting and
>  removed the package from the queue, so it never actually made it to the
>  archive.  Anyways, it happened that at some other point Brian removed
>  his implementation, fixed bugs in the SGI one and shipped that with
>  Mesa.  That's why nowadays the -mesa package provides the SGI
>  implementation.
>  AFAIK, the -xorg package is byte for byte the same thing as the -mesa
>  package.

And I've suggested getting rid of xlibmesa-glu{,-dbg,-dev} several
times, without success. However, this will happen automatically with
X.Org 7.0, see below.

>  > Why this duplication of code and which of this two implementations is
>  > the preferred one?
>  "It depends"
>  What hardware do you have and what do you want to do?
>  On some machines I have NVIDIA hardware because it's the only hardware
>  that supports current OpenGL features both in the hardware and in its
>  driver (a recent Radeon card is useless to me if it supports OpenGL 1.5
>  but its driver doesn't, which is the case with the DRI drivers).

<OT_plug>There's a vendor provided driver for these cards that supports
current OpenGL features as well.</OT_plug>

>  > Could I replace the xorg packages with the mesa packages without ill
>  > effects resp. without loss of functionality?
>  You mean replacing xlibmesa-gl by libgl1-mesa-dri?  It should work, but
>  haven't tested it.

It would have to Conflicts-Replaces-Provides libgl1 for that to work.

>  > Is this an attempt to smooth the transition from the xorg packages to
>  > the mesa ones and in the course of the X modularisation to get
>  > completely rid of the GL/GLU code in xorg (and the libgl*-xorg
>  > packages) and use mesa directly as an external library?  If there is
>  > such a transition how will it take place?
>  Not currently, or at least not one that I know of.

X.Org will indeed no longer ship copies of the Mesa bits as of 7.0.
That'll be an automatic transition so to speak. :)

>  2) Someone with the proper hardware should test the several (there's at
>     least 8 of them IIRC) drivers that ship inside the -dri package with
>     the current (6.8) and future (6.9, 7.0) x.org server.

I'll gladly test the r200 driver once it's built on powerpc and the
libgl1 issue mentioned above is solved.

>  My interest in the mesa package comes from the fact that I develop
>  OpenGL-based applications, which is why I picked it up when it was
>  orphaned and why I've been maintaining it for the last few years.

And you've been doing a great job, keep it up. But if you could use a
helping hand, I wouldn't mind co-maintaining or something. No request,
just an offer.

Earthling Michel Dänzer      |     Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer
Libre software enthusiast    |   http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer

Reply to: