On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Rémi Cardona <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 24/09/2010 15:56, Jon TURNEY a écrit : >> On 23/09/2010 23:43, Keith Packard wrote: >>> What's the state of this patch? Seems like it should default to >>> whatever the old default was in the absence of a dri.pc file? Or is >>> everyone happy with the patch as-is? >> >> I am affected by this, as currently cygwin has no dri.pc file, as mesa >> can't be configured to build swrast_dri.so if you don't have DRM (see >> [1]), so I have to take special steps to build swrast_dri.so. >> >> That said, this change makes perfect sense, so I guess I just need to >> take more special steps to create dri.pc as well :-) > > I'll pipe in to add that this bit us (Gentoo) in the past as well. > > For some unknown reason, DRI support was disabled in our packages for > HPPA and alpha. When swrast's build was moved from the server back into > mesa, the situation got painful for us. > > It turns out DRI works (as in: builds) fine on those arches, so we can > build mesa's swrast and the server just fine, but the situation was more > complex than I anticipated. > > I don't quite remember the details anymore, but maybe something could be > improved there?
Hmm, I don't really get it. If you can't build a DRI-enabled Mesa, you won't have dri.pc and your server won't have DRI support. What part is painful? -- Dan _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
