José Fonseca wrote:
> 
> I've been trying to figure out what is needed for releasing DRI binary
> snapshots. There are two different trees with different particularities
> that I'm interested for now: the trunk and the mach64-0-0-2-branch.
> 
> Common:
> 
> In both cases there is the need for the sources of the DRM to be built on
> each particular user machine/kernel combination. For these I plan to
> release a tarball with the sources from
> xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/drm/kernel/ as Alan made
> in http://www.xfree86.org/~alanh/ .
> 
> Trunk:
> 
> For the drivers at the trunk I'll assume that the user will have XFree
> 4.2.0 so it will only be necessary to pack:
> - the DDX driver (/usr/X11R6/lib/modules/drivers/*_drv.o)
> - the Mesa driver (/usr/X11R6/lib/modules/dri/*_dri.so)
> and also:
> - the libGL (/usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so)
> 
> Is this sufficient?

I belive so.  In some respects it is a function of how divergent the XFree on
peoples machines is from what's in DRI CVS.  DRI's basically fucked up
backwards compatibility on every front until quite recently - we now have
backwards compatibility for kernel modules.  But there are other interfaces
the 3d driver deals with, specifically the DRI extension protocol to the X
server.  Thankfully this hasn't changed in a long time, and if it ever does,
we know now to do it in a backwards-compatible way.  

My guess is this is going to be sufficient then for most if not all cases.  

Have you looked at Alan H's tools for sanity-checking DRI installs?  I've
always thought that these might be useful when trying to write an installer
for DRI binary distributions.

Keith

_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel

Reply via email to