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

Re: Ubuntu plans for Natty release



On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:57:45 +1100, Christopher James Halse Rogers <christopher.halse.rogers@canonical.com> wrote:
> Hey all.
> 
> There are a couple of things in mesa that we'd like to do for Natty that
> could do with some coördination with Debian-X:
> 
> 1) Ship both the classic and gallium versions of r300 & r600, and have
> the DDX select between them based on kms support and an xorg.conf
> setting (default to r300g, as that's the default upstream, and whichever
> r600 driver ends up being default in 7.10).  This is not going to be
> accepted upstream, but is, I think, a reasonable distro-patch to retain
> UMS support for radeon while defaulting to the upstream-default driver.
> 
> 2) As always, we need more space on the CDs.  The DRI drivers are both
> large (~44MB) and contain substantial quantities of common code.  Fedora
> at one point linked their DRI drivers with a shared libdricore¹, and I'm
> looking at doing something similar for the gallium drivers.  This shaves
> about 30MB off the DRI drivers on AMD64 - down to 12MB, without touching
> the gallium drivers.
> 
> Are either of these interesting to debian-x?  Should I be committing
> these changes to the debian branches, or keeping them Ubuntu-specific?
> 
> Also,
> 3) We'll possibly strip out all the less-used (ie: non-intel,
> non-radeon) DRI drivers into a separate package & add jockey hooks for
> users to install them if needed.  That's not going to be so interesting
> for Debian, though.

I'd like to see libdricore patches pushed upstream as a build option if
it's not too invasive.  Fedora dropped them because they got tired of
porting them forward, but I think at the point where two+ distros and
half the mesa developers want the patch in place, we should just shove
it in.

Attachment: pgpMHzo2i5bE9.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: