On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 09:17:05AM -0600, Joshua Shagam wrote: > It's not the compiled code which has to match between DRI and DRM, > just the interface. I'm using a DRM module compiled along with my > 2.4.0-test8 kernel just fine with the precompiled mga.so and mga_dri.so > which came in the X packages. After all, it all goes through a /dev/ > interface - if the compilation had to match, then you'd have to recompile > *all* your binaries whenever you recompile your kernel, and that makes > absolutely no sense whatsoever. > > And since DRM is already distributed as part of the kernel, there's really > no point in putting it in a separate package. :) Thanks for the good counterargument. I'm still apprehensive about moving *_dri.so out of /usr/X11R6/lib/modules. If they aren't really X server modules, then they don't belong in that directory (maybe /usr/lib/xlibmesa3 ?). Should I ask upstream? > > Also very interresting, the mesa package (xlibmesa3) must also be > > "compileable" whitout > > compiling the whole X. > > Why? xlibmesa3 is part of the X server. It's based on Mesa, but it's not > Mesa. Well, actually it is. It's just not generally the exact same version of Mesa that the Mesa developers have released. (That and the fact that the X build doesn't create libGLU yet.) > Isn't the current X server autodetection stuff good enough? Actually, it isn't. But I've written a program called "dexter" (which replaces the old xserver-configure script) which does the prompting this person wanted to see. > I'm sure there'll eventually be (if there isn't already) XF86Setup for > XFree 4, which will let people graphically mangle their conffiles once > again... Yes, xf86cfg, but it is not complete yet. -- G. Branden Robinson | "I came, I saw, she conquered." The Debian GNU/Linux | original Latin seems to have been branden@debian.org | garbled. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
Attachment:
pgpL3gNIi2SP4.pgp
Description: PGP signature