Hans de Goede wrote:
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.
I was expecting that build system fixes would be required, since
xorg-x11-server builds against the mesa-source package. Have you
attempted to rebuild the X server with a mesa-source from CVS?
- ajax
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
