[OE-core] [RFC] OpenGL packaging/staging policy

[Burton, Ross]

On 22 October 2012 18:19, Tomas Frydrych <tf+lists.yocto at r-finger.com> wrote:
> Our
> current difficulties stem directly from trying to pretend this is not
> the case, or that mesa is somehow more than just *a* GL provider. IMHO
> the correct thing to do here is:

Mesa is the only free GL provider, which does make it useful in an
open source build system.

> a) Make the mesa packages machine specific so we can control compatible
> machines and preferred providers to match the HW realities,
>
> b) Split the ginormous mesa recipe, so that it is, for example, possible
> to stage mesa gl without mesa egl, so that we can accommodate HW that
> wants to use bits of mesa.

This would be the "complication packaging tricks" that I alluded to in
the original mail.

Ross