On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Emil Velikov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 24 January 2017 at 18:02, Jason Ekstrand <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Matt Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Emil Velikov <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > On 24 January 2017 at 00:54, Matt Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> These files belong to the vulkan loader. > >> > Fully agreed, patch is > >> > Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov <[email protected]> > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> > Related question: > >> > I was wondering about getting this a step further: > >> > - having the loader provide a .pc file > >> > - tracking required version at configure time and dropping our local > >> > copies of the headers/xml. > >> > > >> > Would you be in favour, against, neutral of such an approach ? > >> > >> I'd be in favor of that, but let's see what Jason thinks. > > > > > > I'd rather not. That would make sense if we all lived in the open-source > > world where everything is upstream all the time. Unfortunately, not all > of > > us have that luxury and we need to be able to work on experimental > branches > > of the spec that may have more extensions than are provided by any loader > > version we can install. I'd be ok with a check for a particular loader > > version just to force distros to update their loader but I would like to > be > > able to build with arbitrary XML branches without having to install a > branch > > of the loader. > What if I tell you that you wouldn't need to install the loader ;-) > More as we get a .pc patches in. > A lot of extensions don't require explicit loader support. I don't want to have to update my loader (or put it in some folder and point pkg-config at it) just to hack on them.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
