Re: [RFC] OpenGL packaging/staging policy

[Tomas Frydrych <tf+lists.yocto@r-finger.com>]

On 22/10/12 20:27, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 22 October 2012 18:19, Tomas Frydrych <tf+lists.yocto@r-finger.com> wrote:
>> Our
>> current difficulties stem directly from trying to pretend this is not
>> the case, or that mesa is somehow more than just *a* GL provider. IMHO
>> the correct thing to do here is:
> 
> Mesa is the only free GL provider, which does make it useful in an
> open source build system.

Useful, yes, but not different. Having multiple providers is a normal
scenario that OE handles perfectly well; having a privileged provider
and bunch second class providers is a new scenario that serves no useful
purpose here -- you are creating the problem you are trying to solve.


> This would be the "complication packaging tricks" that I alluded to in
> the original mail.

There is nothing complicated about this; the fact that you cannot build
mesa GL without *staging* mesa EGL at the same time is broken which ever
way you look at it. Having only mesa to stage things is not a fix, it's
a work around, and one that punishes everyone else for the mesa mess. :-)

Tomas