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

Re: [RFC] proposal for reorganizing the MESA libraries to simplify replacing them with vendor implementations

Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> (22/07/2011):
> So in principle I dislike the idea of making the mesa packages messier
> to make the closed driver packages' life easier.  One thing that's been
> a source of countless bug in the current system is diversions, because
> they're evil, and people keep getting them wrong, and users don't
> understand/expect them, and all kinds of fun ensues.  If mesa were to
> not ship the /usr/lib/$arch/libGL.so.1 (and friends) symlink, but
> instead ship an alternative itself, would that be enough to put an end
> to the diversions?  Not that I think alternatives are ideal either, but
> if we're going to have to put up with something I'd rather it wasn't
> *both* alternatives and diversions.
> Not sure what other X people think.

I'd rather avoid the mess of diversions *AND* alternatives indeed. If
adding alternative support to mesa is the price to pay, I guess we could
work something out.

Please note I'm very busy right now, consequently far behind on anything
X-related; sorry for that.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: