On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:14:01 +0900 Damian Hobson-Garcia <[email protected]> said:
> 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. you don't need a virtual driver lib at all - just something that is libGLxx.so.N that has the symbols. that's it. if thats mesa - so be it. ensure the libGLxx.so.N file exists (for real or a symlink). whatever that file is NOW in tizen is the abi you have to stick to. -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
