Nicolai Haehnle wrote:
The real issue with an IHV-supplied libGL.so is mixing vendors' graphics
cards. As an OpenGL user (i.e. a developer of applications that link
against libGL), I regularly switch graphics cards around to make sure
things work with all the relevant major vendors. Having a
On Iau, 2005-09-29 at 09:49 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 04:07:56PM -0700, Andy Ritger wrote:
Some of the topics raised include:
- minimum OpenGL version required by libGL
- SONAME change to libGL
- libGL installation path
I think the single
On Thursday 29 September 2005 18:30, Alan Cox wrote:
On Iau, 2005-09-29 at 09:49 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 04:07:56PM -0700, Andy Ritger wrote:
Some of the topics raised include:
- minimum OpenGL version required by libGL
- SONAME change to
On Thursday 29 September 2005 04:35, Dave Airlie wrote:
I have to agree with Christoph, the libGL should be a
one-size-fits-all and capable of loading drivers from any vendor, I'm
not sure what is so hard about this apart from the fact that neither
vendor has seemed willing to help out
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 01:54:00PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
| The deeper issue here is whether it's actually useful to require some minimum
| level of functionality even when large swaths of it will be software. If I
| don't have cube map support in hardware, do I really want to try it in
|
I think the single most important point is to explicitly disallow
vendor-supplied libGL binaries in the LSB. Every other LSB componenet
relies on a single backing implementation for a reason, and in practice
the Nvidia libGL just causes endless pain where people acceidentally
link against
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 04:07:56PM -0700, Andy Ritger wrote:
Some of the topics raised include:
- minimum OpenGL version required by libGL
- SONAME change to libGL
- libGL installation path
I think the single most important point is to explicitly disallow
vendor-supplied libGL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(I corrected the CC address for the lsb-desktop list. It was
incorrectly listed as being at lists.freedesktop.org, so none of this
thread has made it to the list where the discussion should be.)
Allen Akin wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 01:54:00PM
On Iau, 2005-09-29 at 22:02 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
And replacing system libraries is not something we can allow anyone.
It's totally reasonable to have different 3cards in the same systems
and they're supposed to work.
Agreed - but the LSB job is still that of defining an ABI.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 01:05:55PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
| ... Our goal is to
| define the minimum that is required to be available on our platform. ...
If by our goal you mean the goal of the Linux OpenGL ABI effort, then
I agree. I
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 01:54:00PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-egl/2005-July/000565.html
In particular, Andy's response about why they're uninterested in a common
libGL is basically The Last Word on the subject. It would require that
nvidia expend
11 matches
Mail list logo
