On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 02:27:37PM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > > To be honest, I would just take the entire recipe out. It's causing > > trouble > > during updates, isn't being tested neither for builds nor at runtime, and > > is supposed to provide some specific configuration which as this > > discussion > > makes clear, nobody seems to quite understand. > > With the abomination that is libmali (and similar), it is still needed. > It's the only way to support GL on a primarily GLES compatible system. > > The problem is the way they do this seems to be a custom version of > libdrm, which then conflicts with the mesa version. Thus the issues. > > I'm happy to continue testing my particular needs now and the future (thus > the patch against master.) >...
Stupid question: Is PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/mesa = "mesa-gl" PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libgl = "mesa-gl" equivalent to PACKAGECONFIG_pn-mesa = "opengl dri x11" ? > --Mark cu Adrian
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#136751): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/136751 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/72547327/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
