On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:59:43AM +0000, Ray Smith wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 9:36 PM Otavio Salvador < > otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > > > Em qua., 10 de fev. de 2021 ās 17:21, Andrey Zhizhikin > > escreveu: > > > >> > >> Should this be clarified with Mesa folks upfront? If you believe that > >> this limitation is rather "artificial", then there has to be a proper > >> explanation from Mesa developers why OGL is provided when OGLES-only > >> is built. > >> > > > > Agreed ... I'd rather not drop the check until we hear from upstream the > > reasoning behind it. > > > > This patch is really about the first line: > > > Mesa doesn't _require_ either of these features of the distribution, > > it (conditionally) _provides_ them. > > Even if we had an opengles distro feature that solved the GLES vs OpenGL > issues, having a 'ANY_OF_DISTRO_FEATURES_class-target = "opengl vulkan > opengles"' line instead still wouldn't make sense (although it would solve > my problem), because mesa doesn't require any of those features. This line > is effectively saying it depends on the things it provides. Or you can read it as that it makes sense to build mesa recipe only when DISTRO supports opengl or vulkan or opengles, which IMHO still makes sense. Similarly when DISTO_FEATURES are used to set PACKAGECONFIG values, it doesn't say what it requires, but what DISTRO wants to support.