From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:32:30 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/8] package/glmark2: gl support also depends on X.org In-Reply-To: <1461586822-1003-2-git-send-email-bernd.kuhls@t-online.de> References: <1461586822-1003-1-git-send-email-bernd.kuhls@t-online.de> <1461586822-1003-2-git-send-email-bernd.kuhls@t-online.de> Message-ID: <20160427213230.0ee9fe71@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:20:16 +0200, Bernd Kuhls wrote: > diff --git a/package/glmark2/Config.in b/package/glmark2/Config.in > index 9167fc5..10c88ee 100644 > --- a/package/glmark2/Config.in > +++ b/package/glmark2/Config.in > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_GLMARK2_EGL_GLES > config BR2_PACKAGE_GLMARK2_GL > bool > default y > - depends on BR2_PACKAGE_MESA3D_DRI_DRIVER > + depends on BR2_PACKAGE_MESA3D_OPENGL_GL I know that may sound like a nitpicking debate, but I'm wondering if we shouldn't keep BR2_PACKAGE_MESA3D_OPENGL_GL as an internal mesa3d symbol, and instead use: depends on BR2_PACKAGE_HAS_LIBGL && BR2_PACKAGE_MESA3D which really expresses what we want: we want an OpenGL implementation, and this OpenGL implementation has to be mesa3d. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com