Comment 140 for bug 43154

(In reply to comment #37)
> > No and I don't have those files.
> Confirm. I don't have those files in my archive (md5:
> eed5daf69f0b970aec0a654fdfcb731e) either. Blobs there are standard parts of
> Mesa DRI driver (unichrome_dri.so and libGL.so). The only strange part is
> libglx.so, but according to vinstall script it's used on FC6/7 only. But
> whether those blobs can be generated for the sources provided and what are the
> licensing terms for them (and last but not least does them suffer from the bug
> 5092) is still unknown, so I'd rather agree with #33 - lets stop posting here
> unless we have some specific information regarding the bug.
>

Yes, the driver package contains some binary libraries. I've tried to compile the source on my Debian sid amd64 machine, and find out regardless it would work or not all necessary .so should be able to generated from the given source.

Via utils and mpeg decoding binaries didn't come with source, but I don't care about them.

The dri libraries was written against mesalib 6.5.2- which need some modification to successfully compiled in current mesalib 7.0.2+. But the result .so still crash my X when working with my old drm kernel module.

The drm kernel modules was written against kernel 2.6.18-(for Debian) which was also a bit out of date and will cause lot of compile warnings. And the result .ko refused to work with exist X. According the xorg.log AIGLX report "operation not perrmitted" will initialing and glxinfo also report "operation not permitted", this is really strange, my /etc/dri/card0 was already set to 0666 and I have correct DRI section in my xorg.conf file.

I also tried to compile the v4l modules, but failed.

The 2D driver compiled, but didn't work in my environment.

Anyone else working on this? Any good news?