José Fonseca wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 07:19:35PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Well, experimenting with my own build suggests that if you include
>>
>> /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/extensions/libdri.a
>>
>> in the binary packages, everything works fine again.
>>
>> ie. radeon works if you install the following on top of a standard
>> XFree86 4.2 distribution:
>>
>> drm kernel module
>> /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/dri/radeon_dri.so
>> /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/drivers/atimisc_drv.o
>> /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/drivers/radeon_drv.o
>> /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/linux/libdrm.a
>> /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/extensions/libdri.a
>>
>> but it doesn't work without the updated libdri.a. This would also
>> explain why all the cards seem to be affected.
>>
>
> Good detective work!
Agreed, and thanks for the clarification on dri vs drm libraries. I
want to look into why the DRI changed. If it's significant we need to
bump the version number.
>> Hopefully this fix is relatively painless for Jose?
>
>
> Yep. No problem! (I'm quite happy it's not a problem with my system or I
> would be lost!)
> The binaries building system is quite flexible in that
> matter [of what can be included or not]. The word before was just
> including the device dependent stuff [i.e., the bare minimum], but after
> this episode I wonder if
> this is such a good idea.
I still think it's a good idea to only ship the minimum with a driver
suite update. Adding more to the extras package and making it necessary
to explicitly load the extras packages would be okay. I'm trying to
avoid independent driver package updates from fighting over device
independent file updates.
--
/\
Jens Owen / \/\ _
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ \ \ Steamboat Springs, Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by:
ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
