From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 23:07:08 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 11/14] package/mesa3d: with a DRI driver, is a full OpenGL provider In-Reply-To: <6c6c678af9a7ff235f32d25f3bea03670749f41d.1397750571.git.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> References: <6c6c678af9a7ff235f32d25f3bea03670749f41d.1397750571.git.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> Message-ID: <20140417230708.42918ee0@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Yann E. MORIN, On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:04:23 +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > config BR2_PACKAGE_MESA3D_DRI_DRIVER > select BR2_PACKAGE_MESA3D_DRIVER > + select BR2_PACKAGE_HAS_LIBGL > bool > > +config BR2_PACKAGE_PROVIDES_LIBGL > + default "mesa3d" if BR2_PACKAGE_MESA3D_DRI_DRIVER I find this a little bit confusing. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a BR2_PACKAGE_MESA3D_GL option, that gets automatically defined when mesa3d provides a full OpenGL implementation? I know it appears to technically be the same as Mesa3D having a DRI driver, but it would look more logical. In fact, the Mesa3D situation is so complex that a good fat comment on top of its Config.in file may be useful to have :) Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com