On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:57:45 +1100, Christopher James Halse Rogers <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
Description: PGP signature