Philip Brown wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 09:19:35PM -0600, Jens Owen wrote:
> > However, I have to point out--that whomever is doing
> > the work get's their way; and since I don't have the bandwidth to
> > support the solaris DRM drivers--that's all I'm going to say, except:
> > If the
Jose Fonseca wrote:
> I still don't understand how it's not worth to work on this but have
> separate equivalent code is. Well, it was just my two cents...
Jose,
I think you're asking the right questions. Personally, if I were
supporting an entire OS, I would prefer to maintain only a varient
On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 17:46, Philip Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 12:35:41PM +0100, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > I know that main reason for resuming the development of Utah-GLX was the
> > difficulties involved in porting the DRM to others OS, such as Solaris.
> > But why not reuse the DRI's
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 12:35:41PM +0100, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> I know that main reason for resuming the development of Utah-GLX was the
> difficulties involved in porting the DRM to others OS, such as Solaris.
>
> But why not reuse the DRI's Mesa and DXX drivers code and port and/or
> remake a s
