On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 10:45:54PM +0000, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > > mach64. I'd do the same with savage. > > > > Either way, seeing as the driver would be in the Mesa trunk, DRI branches > > don't seem to make much sense anymore to me, unless it's for work on GLX > > like the work Ian's doing. > > > > The whole point of DRI branches before was to isolate new driver work, > > but the Mesa trunk works in the opposite direction - i.e. new work being on > > the trunk. > > > > the main reason mach64 is still on a branch in DRI is it is insecure by > default, I'm going to look into it when I've moved apartments and got > myself settled in again :-), I don't think putting insecure code into the > trunk where it may get merged up to XFree86 is such a good idea :-)
Forgetting the DRI for a second Dave. The mach64 code is in the trunk of Mesa. What's stopping someone using that with the miniGLX stuff (with a few fixups) and not knowing about the security issues. All I'm saying is the mach64 code is much more visible now being on the trunk in Mesa, than it used to be in a branch off the DRI. I don't think the savage would be any worse off. Plus, I also think it'd get more testing and more people might know of it's existence to help out. Heck, we can always tell XFree86 to not merge that code because it is insecure. But there are always those who don't care about security and just need accelerated 3D. Alan. ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
