[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: More modularization.



On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Mike A. Harris wrote:

All we need is to properly patch SPEC-file.

In short: No. Absolutely not.  ;o)
For the longer version, please reread my first email.  As I stated
therein, this is not due to it being technically impossible to do.
It is a concious and intentional choice that all Mesa drivers are
provided in one package right now, and I plan on keeping it that way
at least until all of the items I outlined in the first email are
met.

Look. I haven't any of old, good videocard listed in mesa-libGL package.
So why I haven't a way to properly strip down the package, instead of manually remove never used dri-modules?

I don't concern a way of maintaining the source of Mesa (in one package, in two packages, even in one tarball per file), I do concern the result of building from %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot. After the successful compilation mesa packs into a number of packages, so why just don't increase its number? :)

If someone rejects installing of particular dri-modules, everything will be OK, 'cause if user don't have some mesa-dri-supported videocard, the apropriate *.so-module wouldn't be used. So why take care?

Ok, maybe it's a kinda of religion/ideology to keep *all* modules simultaneously?

--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]