Could we not work out a way to peacefully co-exist with a single CVS tree?? As it stands, we need the proper kernel tree, the proper dri tree, the proper XFree86 tree, the proper linuxvideo tree, and probably a couple that I have missed, since things don't seem to work smoothly, to get a working driver for an ATI rage 128 card! Oh ya, sf.gatos.something if you want to try capture... None of the trees seems to be in sync with one another. If you improve something in one of the trees, syncing with the others is somewhat of a nightmare.... Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but the current situation seems to be somewhat less than optimal to me. If the XFree86 people don't trust the gatos people enough for commits to the ati part of the tree, and the gatos people don't trust the XFree86 people enough to sync the trees, not to mention the dri, drm, and all the other stuff, how the hell are we going to come out with a kick-ass driver that takes advantage of all the hardware has to offer?? I am rather new to this field, trying to play by the rules, but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out all the fragmentation of effort.
On 22-Oct-01 at 23:31, Peter Surda ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:57:10PM -0400, Shawn Starr wrote: > > I don't see DRI in XFree86 CVS :( for Mach64. > Because it is in separate branch in DRI cvs. Check out dri-devel mailing > list. > > Bye, > > Peter Surda (Shurdeek) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ICQ 10236103, > +436505122023 > > -- > To boldly go where I surely don't belong. _______________________________________________ Xpert mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
