----- Original Message ----- > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Chad Versace <c...@chad-versace.us> > wrote: > > On 08/05/2011 05:41 AM, Dan Nicholson wrote: > >> I haven't > >> seen any Android.mk files show up in freetype or expat or anything > >> like that. In the same way, mesa doesn't carry a debian folder > >> even > >> though that's how debian and ubuntu build mesa. Certainly if there > >> are > >> fixes to the existing build infrastructure that help get mesa > >> built on > >> android, that should be done, but I don't see why we should carry > >> the > >> android build bits in upstream mesa. > >> > >> -- > >> Dan > > > > Dan, you make a strong point. There's no sense in cluttering Mesa > > with > > additional makefiles, at least not now. Other projects do not do > > that for > > Android, and Mesa doesn't even do it for beloved Debian. The best > > approach would > > be to maintain the Android makefiles in a separate branch, perhaps > > even in a > > personal repo. > I do not have a strong motivation to upstream Android support because > > - it requires changes to Android framework > - it introduces yet another build system to Mesa > > I said this a few months back on mesa-user or -dev when asked. > > But generally, I think the not cluttering Mesa with another build > system is debatable. I know I conflict with myself here, but if > someone ports Mesa to arguably the most widely used OS and would like > to upstream it, should we shut it down because the OS _requires_ its > own build system? Incidentally, gstreamer has Android.mk upstream.
Personally, I wouldn't object having the Android.mk on master branch. IMO code should be useful, above being beautiful and clean. As long it is maintained, serves a purpose, and does not impair the current stuff, then it's fine by me FWIW. Jose _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev