[lsb-discuss] libGL versioning & ABI (was Re: libGLU?)
robert.schweikert at mathworks.com
Mon Jul 9 14:16:17 PDT 2007
I am not a GL expert, but I believe that GL 1.5 is a superset of 1.2,
thus adding the additional calls to the LSB should be relatively easy. I
suspect that adding the 2.1 interfaces would also work as all
distributions probably ship libGL with the 2.1 interfaces already.
Jon Leech wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 01:51:10PM -0700, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
>> I've been told that at some point we really need to
>> converge on OpenGL 2.1. How hard it would be to
>> get there is a question I have no insight into.
> It would not be realistic to require OpenGL 2.1 support at runtime.
> Only graphics cards from the last year or so can support it, and even
> those that can, do not necessarily actually have drivers for it. IIRC,
> AMD is lagging in 2.1 support, probably because they've been focused on
> revamping their unified driver architecture.
> But it would be reasonable to require that all the 2.1 entry points
> exist in libGL, and mandate lower version support in the drivers at
> runtime. Last I looked I think OpenGL 1.5 was a reasonable target - many
> Intel integrated graphics chipsets support that, and they're the lowest
> class of widely used hardware - but the exercise I mentioned does need
> to be conducted. OpenGL 1.5 would still be a big improvement over the 9
> years old 1.2 that's currently required by the ABI :-)
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.freestandards.org
Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
(robert.schweikert at mathworks.com) LINUX
The MathWorks Inc.
Phone : 508-647-2042
More information about the lsb-discuss