Adam Jackson wrote: > Hans de Goede wrote: >> Adam Jackson <ajackson <at> redhat.com> writes: >>> Requires moderately non-trivial fixes to the X server build system >>> too, which is why I haven't done it yet. Probably should do though. >>> I just hate to be in a situation where we're shipping CVS bits in >>> FC6; I keep hoping Mesa will hurry up and release a 6.5.1 already. >> >> Anything I can do to help? Are you really planning on updating mesa for >> FC-6, or would it be worth my time to see if I can isolate a few >> important r300 fixes and backport those? > > Planning a backport, yes. There are apparently enough Intel and <=R200 > issues fixed in CVS that it should just be done whole. Hopefully 6.5.1 > happens Really Freaking Soon so I don't have to ship CVS bits in FC6. > > That said, if updated srpms for mesa and xorg-x11-server were to > magically appear in Bugzilla for me, I certainly wouldn't object ;) > Magically appearing SRPM for latest mesa-CVS filed here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201365 I've been using this with great success on an x86_64 in both 64 and 32 bit mode (I compiled it in a 32 bit chroot and installed the result on my 64 bit Fedora for use with googleearth). You also speak about xorg-x11-server changes, I haven't got any for you as things work fine for me with the current xorg-x11-server in RawHide. Regards, Hans -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
