On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Richard Rauch wrote:
> Frederick Bruckman:
> >> What if, for example, somebody packages DRI for NetBSD? This requires
> >> XFree86 4.0 or greater. If somebody is building packages against the
> >> current release (which ships with XFree86 3.3.6), the package will not
> >> build.
> >>
> > DRI _is_ XFree86-4.x. (It's like the -current version of the Xserver
>  [...]
>
> My understanding is that DRI stands for ``Direct Rendering Interface'' (or
> Infrastructure?).  It is an enhancement for Mesa support to directly
> access the hardware to accelerate the OpenGL implementation.  It is not
> ``-current for XFree86''; it is a specific feature that was present in 4.0
> (for GNU/LINUX), and is apparently now supported on FreeBSD.

DRI now integrated into the Xserver, and XFree86-4 now distributes
libGL in order to support it. The DRI people maintain a cvs repository
which pulls in parts of Mesa and some other bits of XFree86 (on
http://cvs.sourceforge.net); they also check into a branch of XFree86,
which eventually gets pulled up to the release. There is no "-current"
for XFree86 as such, it's just vendor branches and the release -- but
the DRI checkout would be the cutting edge for DRI technology. It also
seems to be the motivation for bumping the version to 4.x. That's what
I meant when I said DRI was like "current" for XFree86.

> Is my understanding on this point wrong?  Or are you saying that DRI works
> on NetBSD, now?  My understanding is that it does not.  But we can
> certainly use XFree86 4.x with NetBSD, without this one feature.
>
> I'd love to hear that 4.0.2 with NetBSD 1.5 (even if only -current) is a
> different story, w.r.t. DRI, than 4.0 was for NetBSD.

I never said acceleration works. :-) I said the DRI Xserver builds
without dependencies on /usr/X11R6, and that it does, and it's likely
to remain that way.

-- 

Frederick