Hi Carsten, On 2014-07-25 2:24 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > On 07/25/2014 02:13 PM, Damian Hobson-Garcia wrote: >> Hi Carsten, >> >> On 2014-07-25 1:07 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: >> >>>>> Mesa could also be used during build time instead of the >>>>> opegl-es-virtual-drv. >>>> Yes and no, I think. There is the minor problem that the >>>> Mesa drivers provide a versioned libGLESv2.so.2, which all of >>>> the built packages will link to. This means that if I want >>>> to install a driver (such as Mali or SGX) after the fact, I >>>> have to provide libGLESv2.so.2 to overwrite the Mesa driver. >>>> If Mesa changes its version number for some reason, now the >>>> Mali and SGX drivers must update their names as well. >>>> opegl-es-virtual-drv is nice because it is not versioned, so >>>> as long as there is a libGLESv2.so (or a link of that name) >>>> in the non floss drivers, everything works. >>> or just provide a symlink. far simpler a solution. drivers >>> just ghave to agree all to provide at least the same symlink to >>> the real driver version >>> >> I don't think it matters whether it's a symlink or not. Either >> way, it requires all of the drivers to keep track of whatever >> version number that Mesa is using for its libGLESv2 and update >> the symlink accordingly. > > for ABI compatibility, mesa can't just go changing major so > version anyway as a binary links agains the major s at the time > i'ts build. if they change major so version they are saying they > broke ABI. so onse everyone is building against libGLxx.so.2 then > it has to stay - unless they break ABI which they neever should. > > so it can be ASSUMED to always be that version - tizen as a > platform has to force/define that and guarantee it across all tizen > variations and versions. if we have to patch mesa (or just add > special symlinks in pkgs) or do the same for other vendor gl > drivers, thatis the price you pay to keep compatibility. that is > what we have to do.
I agree that mesa shouldn't be changing their ABI, but if I have a platform that never has and never will use Mesa drivers, why do I care what they do with their ABI one way or the other? If I instead build against something like opegl-es-virtual-drv, then its a complete non-issue. Then nothing needs to be forced or defined, and I don't need any extra symlinks. Thank you, Damian _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
