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?
> > 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.)
> 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.
--
G. Branden Robinson | "I came, I saw, she conquered." The
Debian GNU/Linux | original Latin seems to have been
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | garbled.
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
PGP signature
