On 19 Oct 2002, Sergey V. Udaltsov wrote: >> ie: Not for production use. Definitely has bugs. Please find >> them. ;o) >Cool position! What about patches from dri.sourceforge.net and gatos for >mach64? I use accelerated gl and xv for some while (using leif's >binaries) - they work just perfectly for me! When are we going to see >them in redhat rpms? You'll never see DRI-CVS or GATOS in Red Hat Linux RPM packages. Not official ones anyway. DRI-CVS is _development_ code. When it is considered remotely stable, it gets put into XFree86 CVS by the DRI and XFree86 teams. At that point, it will get picked up by my RPMs when I update to the latest CVS after the merge. The GATOS drivers are greatly diverged from both X CVS and DRI CVS, and DRI doesn't work with them properly. Replacing the XFree86 drivers with the GATOS ones is not a viable option, and never will be. The only time any GATOS code will appear in Red Hat RPM packages, is when the DRI and/or XFree86 projects merge bits and pieces of the GATOS code considered clean and stable into their official source trees respectively. That said, I have considered packaging the GATOS and DRI-CVS stuff in separate unofficial packaging for quite some time, and having them install into different module directories, and allow users to switch between drivers by fiddling with ModulePath in the config file. It's just been ultra-low priority, as there is a lot much more important work that needs doing that always seems to get my attention. Also, both the DRI-CVS and GATOS drivers require updated DRM kernel modules, which makes the idea of putting them in RPM format that much more complex/insane. That said, bits of the GATOS code are planned to be merged into either DRI or XFree86 CVS before long. When that occurs, and trickles into my packages, I will make note of it when I update the RPM packages. The Mach64 code is a separate branch of DRI-CVS. When it is deemed slightly ready for public consumption, it'll get merged into the DRI trunk, and eventually XFree86 trunk also. It is unclear at this point if that will happen for 4.3.0 or not. If it does make it into 4.3.0, and passes testing on all my Mach64 cards without puking, I'll enable it in our RPM's. If it doesn't pass stability testing though, even if it is in the 4.3.0 release, I'll probably disable it in our official builds with a compile time switch. Hopefully it will get in though, and pass viewperf testing and other batteries of tests I plan on pounding all hardware with this time around. Hope this is useful info. Take care, TTYL -- Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris OS Systems Engineer XFree86 maintainer Red Hat Inc. _______________________________________________ xfree86-list mailing list xfree86-list@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/xfree86-list IRC: #xfree86 on irc.redhat.com
