> > (It may be of interest: ``locate glx.so'' returns nothing.  Shouldn't
> > there be a so-named file somewhere on my file system, in order for this to
> > work?  Or is the .so ``file'' internal somewhere?)
> 
> Yes. http://reality.sgi.com/ripperda_engr/glx/ .

Noted and bookmarked.  (^&  Thanks.


> > Is there any way to get an XFree86 X driver to report the extensions that
> > it supports (and which it has enabled)?  I was poking around
> > /usr/X11/bin/*, but couldn't find any programs that seemed to provide such
> > information.
> 
> xdpyinfo | grep GLX

I knew there was something like that.  Thanks again.


> > I can live with that.  Mesa appears close enough to OpenGL that there
> > should be little or no changes needed in the lab.
> 
> Don't set your hopes too high. Even with software-only Mesa which at
> least is quite stable, you will find that SGI has quite a few often
> undocumented extensions to GLX/OpenGL which makes life hard if you
> for instance want to use commercial Irix application with NetBSD X.

Well, this is for a graphics programming class.  I doubt that we will use
undocumented features in our programs.  Since we are, by definition,
writing our own programs, we have some (but not total) control over what
we use in our programs, and how we use it.  (But all projects must be
submitted with a Makefile, collected with ``shar'', and compilable/working
on the SGI machines.)

The concern is less a one of ``can Mesa run an SGI OpenGL program?'' and
more a one of ``can Mesa be used satisfactorily to develop/test/debug an
OpenGL program which MUST compile & run correctly under SGI OpenGL?''  I
assume that it can, but not being able to test the final application
(running on the SGI box, displaying on my NetBSD box) forces me to do the
final testing/tweaking on the SGI's.  (The SGI's are on-campus, 30 miles
from where I live.  Fortunately, I'm on-campus 5 days a week anyway.)


Thanks for the information.


  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about."  --rkr@rkr.kcnet.com