On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 03:33:26PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > These are not fully tested, but should at least be an improvement... If it will get 3Dfx users off my back I will be happy. (I'm a 3Dfx user myself.) > 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. > The TDFX problem turned out to be the ordering of two #if's. I take it this is fixed now, then? I'll rebuild. > This is another byproduct of Ani absolutely refusing to support the > patches when applied on a non-powerpc architecture. I understand your > insistance on this point, but it would make everything tremendously > easier if we just applied this patch on the one architecture that needs > it. We don't tolerate architecture bigotry when it comes from IA32 people, I don't understand why we should tolerate it coming from PowerPC people. 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. -- G. Branden Robinson | Reality is what refuses to go away when Debian GNU/Linux | I stop believing in it. branden@debian.org | -- Philip K. Dick http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpdLrlGClQr1.pgp
Description: PGP signature