Hi Carsten, On 2014-07-25 3:46 PM, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > 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. > > Right, so if the ABI never changes, then neither will N. So would the best solution then be to just not have N and just provide libGLxx.so everywhere?
Damian _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
