Re: [Mesa3d-dev] Re: [Dri-devel] Savage 3D driver roadmap

[Brian P. <bri...@tu...>]

Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>mach64. I'd do the same with savage.
>>
>>Either way, seeing as the driver would be in the Mesa trunk, DRI branches
>>don't seem to make much sense anymore to me, unless it's for work on GLX
>>like the work Ian's doing.
>>
>>The whole point of DRI branches before was to isolate new driver work,
>>but the Mesa trunk works in the opposite direction - i.e. new work being on
>>the trunk.
>>
> 
> 
> the main reason mach64 is still on a branch in DRI is it is insecure by
> default, I'm going to look into it when I've moved apartments and got
> myself settled in again :-), I don't think putting insecure code into the
> trunk where it may get merged up to XFree86 is such a good idea :-)

Well, one could skip building of the mach64 driver by default.  I.e. 
compile and use at your own risk kind of thing.

-Brian