2011/9/30 Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@freedesktop.org:
Er, sure, but that brings up my second point: the GPL restricts
redistribution, not use, so you are not required to accept it to use
GPL tools.
Again, mirroring Alan's comment. IANAL. I just do what the Lawyers
say. I am told not to
Hi Matt,
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com
---
The last discussion about using automake ([RFC] Convert mesa to
automake/libtool)
ended without anything happening, probably because the branch wasn't ready.
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com
---
The last discussion about using automake ([RFC] Convert mesa to
automake/libtool)
ended without anything happening, probably because the branch wasn't ready.
This patch
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Gaetan Nadon mems...@videotron.ca wrote:
On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 21:06 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
The patch has a few problems currently, and a few things that can possibly
be
done better:
- Mainly, that building libmesa.a currently fails.
-
So the original complaint, that he is forced to accept the GPLv3
to use autoconf seems a little confused.
From the 2.62 release notes at
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autotools-announce/2008-04/msg2.html:
Meanwhile, several source files within the Autoconf project are under
On Sep 28, 2011, at 23:28, Miles Bader wrote:
2011/9/29 Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@oracle.com:
_Why_ is the GPLv3 not acceptable, when the GPLv2 was?
Note his employer, which is well known as not accepting the GPLv3,
possibly due to it being a mobile phone manufacturer, and the
On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 21:06 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
The last discussion about using automake ([RFC] Convert mesa to
automake/libtool)
ended without anything happening, probably because the branch wasn't
ready.
This patch is an attempt to get the ball rolling again. Without
ripping out
On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 21:06 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
The patch has a few problems currently, and a few things that can
possibly be
done better:
- Mainly, that building libmesa.a currently fails.
- Not sure how to handle shared/static dricore options.
- libtool
On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 15:41 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Gaetan Nadon mems...@videotron.ca wrote:
I had a quick look, configure.ac is huge and has a big impact on Makefiles.
I think it should be reviewed and cleaned-up to understand how it affects
makefiles.
On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 16:55 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Gaetan Nadon mems...@videotron.ca wrote:
If you are moving towards a non-hacked automake world, the INSTALL variable
should not be used for mesa makefiles. It all depends on the end goals and
the
On , Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
In short, 2.62 is the first version that includes GPLv3 tools to build
autoconf, even though what is installed is GPLv2.
[1] http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2011-June/022724.html
Thanks, that explains the significance of 2.62 -- but it doesn't
On 09/28/11 09:58 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
On , Matt Turnermatts...@gmail.com wrote:
[1] http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2011-June/022724.html
Thanks, that explains the significance of 2.62 -- but it doesn't
actually explain the problem; it just says In order to build it, I
would have
On 09/26/2011 03:05 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:38:10 -0400, Matt Turnermatts...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Eric Anholte...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:36:02 -0400, Matt Turnermatts...@gmail.com wrote:
diff --git
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:36:02 -0400, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/mixed
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com
---
The last discussion about using automake ([RFC] Convert mesa to
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:36:02 -0400, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/mixed
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com
On 09/26/2011 08:29 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
I'd like to add other libs (hash table) at the src/ level, too, so a
single helper lib that is mesa's shared, non-mtypes-using stuff but not
things that are really Mesa like the glsl compiler would be nice.
Yeah, we really could use a src/util folder.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:38:10 -0400, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:36:02 -0400, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
diff --git a/src/glsl/glsl_lexer.ll b/src/glsl/glsl_lexer.ll
index
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com
---
The last discussion about using automake ([RFC] Convert mesa to
automake/libtool)
ended without anything happening, probably because the branch wasn't ready.
This patch
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Gaetan Nadon mems...@videotron.ca wrote:
I had a quick look, configure.ac is huge and has a big impact on Makefiles.
I think it should be reviewed and cleaned-up to understand how it affects
makefiles.
Just a few examples of statements to investigate. Not that
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Gaetan Nadon mems...@videotron.ca wrote:
If you are moving towards a non-hacked automake world, the INSTALL variable
should not be used for mesa makefiles. It all depends on the end goals and
the motivation behind the conversion to automake which has not been
20 matches
Mail list logo
