[GEM-dev] 'official' support?

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,
chris clepper hat gesagt: // chris clepper wrote:

> Looking over the bug and error reports the past six months shows the
> majority of them coming from hardware and software configurations I do
> not and cannot not test (and probably would not want to run either).
> Would it make any difference to post a list of 'official'
> configurations which we develop and test?

Being responsible for some of these reports with my Matrox and Intel
gfx hardware, I would of course be quite sad if direct support for
these would be officially dropped (like the Ogre-people did it).

But apart from my personal view I would also like to mention that I
encounter especially Intel hardware quite regularily in workshops I
teach: Not everyone has a NVidia chip there, and Intel still is the
largest gfx chip vendor by numbers. As we also teach with Linux live
CDs: these cannot ship binary drivers so it requires an additional
step (or many of them) to set everything up. 

Dropping support for any driver that is not binary in my view would
feel wrong for a GPL project IMO, although I can fully understand that
the time of the Gem developers is limited and support simply may not
be possible in real life. 

I'm willing to help getting Gem work properly on the chips I own by
testing (which I already do) and also other things that are in reach
of my abilities. Just tell me what's needed.

Ciao
-- 
 Frank Barknecht                 _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__