On Sunday 06 February 2005 14:46, Lars Roland wrote:
> 2) Doing open source driver development with the Windows driver
> development kit, is somewhat limiting given that the DDK is not free
> (nor is Visual Studio) - this will possible limit the community that
> could help developing a Windows driver - on the other hand it could
> be argued that anyone serious about Windows driver development will
> own the appropriate tools for doing so.
What is wrong with gcc for this? You probably won't be doing too much
forms design.
> 3) Does anyone have an idea of how Nvidia have created there unified
> driver architecture. I have always found it to be really pleasant to
> install NVidia drivers on Windows (and Linux), because it is so
> simple - I just cannot comprehend if this is done using clever
> install code hacks, like MSI on Windows or auto tools on Linux.
Auto tools... let me remark that Mesa is a joy to configure and build,
and does not use autoconf/automake. In fact, they used to use it but
had problems so they switched to conventional make. I don't violently
object to auto tools so long as somebody else puts in the time to make
them work properly. I also don't see that they buy a lot.
>From the Mesa docs:
"Mesa uses a rather conventional Makefile system. A GNU
autoconf/automake system used to be included, but was discarded in Mesa
5.1 because:
* It seldom worked on IRIX, Solaris, AIX, etc.
* It was very compilicated
* Nobody maintained it
* libtool was just too weird"
Regards,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
