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 v
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 exp
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 i
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. Obvi
-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 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 lib
>
> 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 agai
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
| s
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 infr
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
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 t
I apologize for the cross posting, but I'd like to call attention
to the discussion on updating the Linux OpenGL ABI that Jon Leech
initiated on the lsb-desktop email alias:
http://base4.freestandards.org/pipermail/lsb-desktop/2005-September/000146.html
Some of the topics raised include:
12 matches
Mail list logo
