Comment 134 for bug 43154

(In reply to comment #29)
> >
> [quote]stinke on Ubuntu lauchpad[/quote
> Okay, so someone has reported the new release in the
> DRI Mailing List [1] and it's been commented.

What release would that be and why do i not see anything in the mesa tree?

> It doesn't look like Valentine Sinitsyn and Luc Verhaegen
> have really had a look at the sources (yet).

Have you?

> From what I can tell everything except the libddmpeg.so
> is provided as source code in the package,
> contrary to what they are saying.

What about: uma_dri.so, libOGL.so, libGL.so.1.2 ?

See any code for those?

And what about the libS3G.a binaries in the drm directory?

Could it also be that you mistake what code there is for drm and agp as fully free source, ignoring the large binary blobs in the process?

If you say out loud that maybe some people should look at some things, maybe you should verify for yourself first. Especially when you're questioning the person who has been tracking VIA movements for the past 4.5ys, and who has kicked VIA up the rear end more than once for crap licenses in their x driver sources, and got them fixed.

Now, since another fable is helped out of this world, now i can, for my part, stf and do something useful.