Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:07 AM, José Fonseca <jfons...@vmware.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 07:36 -0700, Brian Paul wrote:
Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Jakob Bornecrantz <wallbra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Since we don't have any progs in mesa that uses glew anymore is it
okay if we drop it? I have attached a patch which drops it its a bit
big so I packed it. And here is the change thingy:
configs/beos | 2 +-
configs/darwin | 2 +-
configs/default | 4 +-
configs/freebsd-dri | 2 +-
configs/linux-cell | 2 +-
configs/linux-dri-xcb | 2 +-
configs/linux-indirect | 2 +-
configure.ac | 2 +-
include/GL/glew.h |14435 ------------------------------------------------
include/GL/glxew.h | 1476 -----
include/GL/wglew.h | 1247 -----
src/SConscript | 1 -
src/glew/LICENSE.txt | 73 -
src/glew/Makefile | 54 -
src/glew/SConscript | 69 -
src/glew/glew.c |14320 -----------------------------------------------
src/glew/glewinfo.c | 8441 ----------------------------
src/glew/visualinfo.c | 1173 ----
18 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 41299 deletions(-)
This got stuck in the moderation queue, resending without the patch.
Looks good.
But it would be handy to have glew in the mesa-demos tree so that we
don't all have find/install the latest version.
Yes.
And glut, could we move glut to demos too? It would make building on
windows easy again.
glut might be something that deserves its own repo since some people
use Kilgard's glut as their system glut. Requiring them to get that
from a demos package seems a little odd. But splitting it out of the
main mesa package seems nice, if not just for licensing reasons.
I'd be OK with that, but please don't remove it until glut is set up
somewhere else, either in the demo repo or a new repo.
I could move the glew sources into the demo tree but someone else will
have to setup the automake stuff.
-Brian
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
