Keith Packard wrote:
> Around 12 o'clock on May 27, Ian Romanick wrote:
>>I'm pretty sure that XFree86 and Xorg will continue to want to build 3D
>>drivers as part of their distribution process. Even so, there are parts
>>of Mesa that are needed to build libGL.so and libglx.a.
> With stable interfaces and published Mesa releases, there's no good reason
> to incorporate the Mesa code into the X release. Certainly the X build
> could depend on a specific Mesa release (or range of releases) if
> necessary, but that's already common practice for many other systems.
> Having X split into pieces so that Mesa could depend on those without
> having to have the X server also pre-built seems necessary as well though.
We can cut the Mesa tree imported into X down a lot, but it will always
need some stuff to build libGL.so and libglx.a. It will need, at the
very least, all the API dispatch code and the code for operating on
__GLcontextModes (which are used internally to represent
GLXVisualConfigs and GLXFBConfigs).
After looking at the "fake" GLX stuff and the mini GLX stuff, we might
want to pull even more of the generic GLX stuff (i.e., not the parts
that implement the wire protocol) into Mesa. I see no point in having 3
different-but-similar implementations of glXChooseVisual or
glXChooseFBConfig, for example. That's quite a few more steps down the
Refactoring is fun. :)