kelledin+BLFS at skarpsey.dyndns.org
Tue Sep 17 14:32:43 PDT 2002
On Tuesday 17 September 2002 01:28 am, Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 September 2002 05:30, DJ Lucas wrote:
> > The following was taken from a post in blfs-support:
> > btw i dont think you need the cvs
> > of dri anymore, speaking with people on the Xpert mail
> > list, i think most things are already merged into the
> > main XFree86-4.2.1 tree
> That's nonsense, even now XFree-CVS (126.96.36.199) and DRI are out
> of sync. Before 4.3.0 will be released they will be merged
> properly, however that may be some time away, since 4.3 is a
> non-trivial upgrade (new fontconfig, Xft2, new cursor library,
> mesa-4, etc.).
> > I wanted to mention here that dri worked out of the box,
> > without any config on a completely new system build. I had
> > built the dri and agpgart modules into the kernel on the
> > initial kernel config. (2.4.19) Built XFree86-4.2.1 and
> > didn't really mess with the host.def (except for
> > optimizations). Ran XFree86 config and edited the
> > XF86Config file for my mouse, fired up X, and ran glxinfo.
> > Shows everything correct.
> At least the kernel modules should be updated, since the
> default drm modules are dated 2001. Also, the 4.2.0 stock drm
> kernel drivers don't build properly with gcc-3.x so we still
> need DRI-cvs there. Finally, 4.2.0 is getting old fast.
> > Thought maybe it should be mentioned. I've still had
> > problems building some modules with the cvs checkout of the
> > dri stuff, so I left it the way it was..no problems at all.
> > Anyways, thought this might be of some use for ya'll.
> Yes, for some people dri-cvs isn't needed, however for most
> people I think it still is, esp. if you have more newer
> graphics card. I think we shouldn't consider dropping the cvs
> instructions at least untill 4.3.0 is released. Btw. I'm only
> monitoring the main xfree86 devlist (xpert at xfree86.org) but
> not the dri list, so if you have more inside information,
> please speak up.
Mainly the problem is ATI support. Matrox support is great with
the stock X 4.2.0 DRI, and Matrox is pretty good about releasing
fully (or almost fully) accelerated drivers for recent cards.
nVidia support...well, we know how nVidia support goes.
ATI support is currently behind, though. XVideo and 3D support
isn't supported in all the cards it could be (particularly the
Mach64, which I have in my laptop). It's partly there in r128
drivers, but from what I hear, not completely.
I've heard some rumblings about ATI developing Linux drivers for
recent cards (like the Radeon). However, ATI has trouble
producing usable Windows drivers, so that doesn't really inspire
"If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does
it still cost four figures to fix?"
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-dev