Mir

Merge lp://qastaging/~albaguirre/mir/move-gl-program into lp://qastaging/mir

move-gl-program
Merge into development-branch

Proposed by Alberto Aguirre on 2014-05-07

Status:

Merged

Approved by:

Alan Griffiths on 2014-05-08

Approved revision:

no longer in the source branch.

Merged at revision:

1609

Proposed branch:

lp://qastaging/~albaguirre/mir/move-gl-program

Merge into:

lp://qastaging/mir

Diff against target:

46 lines (+4/-4)

3 files modified

src/platform/graphics/CMakeLists.txt (+1/-0)
src/platform/graphics/gl_program.cpp (+3/-3)
src/server/graphics/CMakeLists.txt (+0/-1)

To merge this branch:

bzr merge lp://qastaging/~albaguirre/mir/move-gl-program

Critical

Fix Released

Link a bug report

Reviewer	Review Type	Date Requested	Status
Alan Griffiths			Approve on 2014-05-08
Daniel van Vugt		2014-05-07	Approve on 2014-05-08
PS Jenkins bot (community)	continuous-integration		Approve on 2014-05-07
Review via email: mp+218674@code.qastaging.launchpad.net

Commit message

GLProgram should be part of platform/graphics (LP: #1317200)

Description of the change

GLProgram should be part of platform/graphics (LP: #1317200)

OverlayGLProgram uses a unique_ptr<mir::graphics::GLProgram> which needs the definition of ~GLProgram()
GLProgram currently compiles into mirgraphics which is GPL - libmirplatformgraphics should not link against mirgraphics so this MP moves GLProgram to src/platform/graphics

Alternatively it could live in a LGPL sharedgraphics library perhaps under src/shared/graphics

Revision history for this message

PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote on 2014-05-07:

Click here to trigger a rebuild:
http://s-jenkins.ubuntu-ci:8080/job/mir-team-mir-development-branch-ci/1549/rebuild

review: Approve (continuous-integration)

Revision history for this message

Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt) wrote on 2014-05-08:

I'm a bit confused by our overuse of generic (meaningless) words like "platform" and "graphics". It's not yet clear to me what the right place for GLProgram is until I dig into it.

review: Abstain

Revision history for this message

Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt) wrote on 2014-05-08:

Alright, after a bit more analysis I agree this is the right answer.

Argue about our library design another day...

review: Approve

Revision history for this message

Alan Griffiths (alan-griffiths) wrote on 2014-05-08:

Yes. This matches the "licensing" plans. (Which we ought to write up in a public document instead of hearsay and notes from internal discussions/.)

review: Approve