dj_me at swbell.net
Wed Sep 18 21:08:56 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 (18.104.22.168) 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.
Actually the first paragraph was taken from another post on BLFS-Support
IIRC. It's not mine, but I didn't quote correctly.
> 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
Actually, surprising enough, my video card is an ATI Radeon7000/VE (Radeon
QY). Things are lookin good. I'm not really in need of DRI at the moment
anyways so nothing to actually post info off of except glxgears and glxinfo.
:-$ I am inclined to agree about waiting for XFree-4.3.0, I just found it
interesting that it worked without attempting to do the config as it did not
with 4.2.0. Perhaps I should have clarified better my intent. Thanks for
the aditional info tho.
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