Quoting Jose Fonseca [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/~jfonseca/dri/packages/
Unfortunately, as you can notice the packages are huge. Attached is a
file list
On 2002.02.25 10:02 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Some good news, just when I'm away from school! (and its great connection
:) ).
But just a thought: it looks like you use the standard host.def for the
mach64 build. And the last time I checked out the branch, the #define
MesaUse3DNow YES
Quoting Ian Romanick [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There are two parts to this. There is the assembly coded parts of Mesa
(for 3Dnow SSE) and there are compile switches for GCC. For example, we may
wish to see if there are any benefits to building a version with
'-mcpu=i686' or '-mcpu=k6' or ... in
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/~jfonseca/dri/packages/
Unfortunately, as you can notice the packages are huge. Attached is a
file list of the i810 driver. libGLcore, e.g., is 18
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 04:56:48PM +, Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/~jfonseca/dri/packages/
Just a comment. Why don't you put these up on the DRI pages
On Fri, 2002-02-22 at 17:02, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 04:56:48PM +, Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/~jfonseca/dri/packages/
I've also put the my (incredible simple and featureless) script for
doing this at the scripts/ subdirectory.
Jose Fonseca
On Fri, 2002-02-22 at 16:56, Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 05:15:00PM +, Jose Fonseca wrote:
On Fri, 2002-02-22 at 17:02, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 04:56:48PM +, Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available
Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/~jfonseca/dri/packages/
Unfortunately, as you can notice the packages are huge. Attached is a
file list of the i810
José Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 17:28 Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/~jfonseca/dri/packages/
Unfortunately, as you
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:37:08PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jos Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 17:28 Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
On 2002.02.22 20:57 Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:37:08PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jos Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 17:28 Keith Whitwell wrote:
...
What is libGLcore.a? Is that actually used?
Keith
Is responsible for the indirect
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:59:01PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 20:57 Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:37:08PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jos Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 17:28 Keith Whitwell wrote:
...
What is libGLcore.a? Is that actually used?
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:17:28PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 21:13 Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:59:01PM +, Jos Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 20:57 Alan Hourihane wrote:
...
libGLcore.a is the internal Mesa code that drives indirect GLX.
If
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:37:08PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jos Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 17:28 Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:38:28PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
No. XFree86 4.2.0 is Mesa 3.4.x based, and it seems XFree86 4.3.0 will
be Mesa 4.0.x based. A MAJOR update!
Alan.
hmmm.. the only way I see to make everyone happy (I'm already seeing
Sergey complaining about the size of
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:53:50PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:37:08PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jos Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 17:28 Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the
But can't we assume that the user is upgrading from a stable XFree 4.2.0
installation?
No. XFree86 4.2.0 is Mesa 3.4.x based, and it seems XFree86 4.3.0 will
be Mesa 4.0.x based. A MAJOR update!
I think we have to look at the scope of what we're trying to do: provide an
updated dri
hmmm.. the only way I see to make everyone happy (I'm already seeing
Sergey complaining about the size of the download! ;-) is to make two sets
of drivers:
- one with everything included, including debugging info
- another with stripped binaries and without the libraries that do not
On 2002.02.22 22:02 Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:38:28PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
No. XFree86 4.2.0 is Mesa 3.4.x based, and it seems XFree86 4.3.0 will
be Mesa 4.0.x based. A MAJOR update!
Alan.
hmmm.. the only way I see to make everyone happy (I'm
hmmm.. the only way I see to make everyone happy (I'm already seeing
Sergey complaining about the size of the download! ;-) is to make two sets
:)) I do not like to complain as much as you can think:). But GATOS
binary snapshots drivers are only 190K! Even if dri will be 5 times
larger - it
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:59:01PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
But can't we assume that the user is upgrading from a stable XFree 4.2.0
installation?
No. XFree86 4.2.0 is Mesa 3.4.x based, and it seems XFree86 4.3.0 will
be Mesa 4.0.x based. A MAJOR update!
I think we have
Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/~jfonseca/dri/packages/
Unfortunately, as you can notice the packages are huge. Attached is a
file list of the i810
On 2002.02.22 22:12 Sergey V. Udaltsov wrote:
hmmm.. the only way I see to make everyone happy (I'm already seeing
Sergey complaining about the size of the download! ;-) is to make two
sets
:)) I do not like to complain as much as you can think:). But GATOS
binary snapshots drivers are
On 2002.02.22 22:00 Keith Whitwell wrote:
hmmm.. the only way I see to make everyone happy (I'm already seeing
Sergey complaining about the size of the download! ;-) is to make two
sets
of drivers:
- one with everything included, including debugging info
- another with stripped
On 2002.02.22 22:27 Brian Paul wrote:
Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/~jfonseca/dri/packages/
Unfortunately, as you can notice the packages are huge.
On 2002.02.22 22:49 Daryll Strauss wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 10:24:49PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
I have a web statistics package on my webserver
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/cgi-bin/awstats.pl were one could get that
information.
This doesn't mean that I won't put my stuff on DRI
Is the idea here to have daily/weekly (or whatever) CVS snapshots or to
start an incremental release process seperate from XFree86 releases (i.e.,
with release tags)?
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Daryll Strauss wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 10:24:49PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
I have a web
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 10:54:22PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
But on a daily basis!? At least this was the initial plan..
I was thinking in using a script that made some kind of rotation
eliminating old releases, only adding a snapshot when there were
differences, etc... This can be done
Ian Romanick wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:59:01PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
But can't we assume that the user is upgrading from a stable XFree 4.2.0
installation?
No. XFree86 4.2.0 is Mesa 3.4.x based, and it seems XFree86 4.3.0 will
be Mesa 4.0.x based. A MAJOR
30 matches
Mail list logo
