[lsb-discuss] X11 Extensions for Fullscreen OpenGL

Jeff Licquia jeff at licquia.org
Thu Apr 24 10:34:35 PDT 2008

Jan Emoti wrote:
> Are there other alternatives to using randr, since they say it only 
> works with "recent versions of Linux" and there are "still have very 
> serious issues" for some hardware?
> Given that randr omits all Radeon R100 series AND GeForce 1-7 series 
> parts, would the loss of this massive installed-base discourage ISV's 
> from linux?
> Is libXxf86vm not in lsb because it was once not included in Debian 
> 3.1r2 on x86?
> If this is not the best list for these kind of questions please tell me 
> where to go.

It's no problem to discuss here; the answers you get, though, might be 
different than elsewhere.

It seems to me that RandR is the future; it seems to work a lot better 
than its predecessors, and everyone who needs to do this seems to be 
moving to it.  Given that, it doesn't make sense for the LSB to adopt 
something that's going away.  If we were to adopt something, it would be 

Very few X extensions are in the LSB.  I believe that, prior to LSB 3.2, 
none were.  The priorities for now are on things like Xtest, which are 
used by far more apps.

It is a shame that some older hardware is getting left behind.  OTOH, 
this illustrates yet again why open-source drivers are important: you 
aren't left begging from your vendor or buying a new video card to 
support the newest stuff.  RandR isn't alone in this.

As a fix for your problem, you could use dlopen to conditionally use 
Xxf86vm or RandR, depending on what's supported.  This could even be 
done in an LSB-compliant manner, as long as the app had a fallback for 
when neither library is available.

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list