Brian Paul writes:
> have an unofficial standard for the format of this string for Linux
> drivers.
I second the "standard", I would like to argue "official".
> I'm not proposing this should be part of the "OpenGL ABI for Linux"
> standard.
Is there a disadvantage is doing so? I.e. not generic enough?
> "[Mesa | SI] [DRI | UtahGLX] <card> <version> <card-specific>"
"Mesa" | "SI" would be a special case of <package>?
<implementation>? Which has to be used in connection
with GL_VENDOR (Brian's Mesa, a Mesa derivative, SGI's SI,
an SI derivative from MetroLink, Xi?).
[ DRI | "UtahGLX" ] - <architecture>? Why is this necessary?
If there are different builts from the same version of the
same implementation, then the version string seems inadequate?
I understand there won't be DRI for VG/V2, but the cards won't
go away, so we need a string for non-DRI, non-GLX builts of Mesa?
And one for software-only GLX? And fake-GLX? It seems open
ended, and I am tempted to defer this into the <version> specifier.
> driver's version to what might be available for download from
> a website. It may also be used to identify driver versions for tech
> support and in bug reports.
It is also good for driver install: use picutils to identify
hardware, built/select proper driver (GLSetup-like).
b.
