[bug#74522] [PATCH 20/73] move libgl provider from mesa to libglvnd+mesa

[The Man <squishypinkelephant@gmail.com>]

generally this should only greatly benefit anyone using nvidia
especially those using multiple gpus of different vendors, as was the
primary reason libglvnd was proposed anyways.
otherwise it would loosen the current restriction of strictly using
mesa for gl.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 9:41 PM The Man <squishypinkelephant@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not a complete expert on the topic but the general consensus is
> that libglvnd is expected to be used.
> mesa's upstream defaults to compiling with libglvnd support (if it can
> find it. i didn't see much success, only tried once... , simply adding
> libglvnd as an input)
> even with nvidia moving towards open source for once I hard suspect
> they will default to the libglvnd expected packaging style, with very
> few distributions being similar to guix (with the libgl provider is a
> single vendor)
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 7:45 PM Maxim Cournoyer
> <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Is this how Mesa upstream foresees all of its users to use it?  Or is it
> > just Nvidia's or systems requiring of proprietary nvidia/amd drivers
> > (non-mesa ones) that benefit from that?
> >
> > Since even nvidia is moving toward having proper free drivers (coupled
> > with proprietary firmware blobs...), I wonder if libgl still has value,
> > especially for a system such as Guix which promotes software freedom.
> >
> > I haven't researched the question, so I'm asking in case you can shed
> > light on this matter.
> >
> > Without looking too much into it yet, perhaps this change could be
> > mostly automated via some 'git grep -l bmesa | xargs sed
> > 's/\bmesa\b/libgl/' or similar; and could then be committed as a single
> > change, eschewing the usual GNU ChangeLog format for the command used?
> > We allow this when the change is a massive and automated (e.g.,
> > sed-authored) change.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > --
> > Maxim