On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 11:20:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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?
Ur, although they're separate files from the video drivers, aren't they
considered part of the video driver?
> > > 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.)
Oh, I was under the impression that xlibmesa was more than just mesa (i.e.
that it was the client-side libGL, which handled all the communication with
the X server, be it through GLX or whatever).
> > 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.
Can't be any worse than XF86Setup was. ;)
Joshua Shagam /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
email@example.com \ / No HTML/RTF in email
www.cs.nmsu.edu/~joshagam X No Word docs in email
/ \ Respect for open standards