<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.webkit.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Replace OpenGL{,ES}Shims with libepoxy, and #if USE(OPENGL_ES_2) with runtime checks"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146680#c11">Comment # 11</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Replace OpenGL{,ES}Shims with libepoxy, and #if USE(OPENGL_ES_2) with runtime checks"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146680">bug 146680</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:cgarcia@igalia.com" title="Carlos Garcia Campos <cgarcia@igalia.com>"> <span class="fn">Carlos Garcia Campos</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=146680#c8">comment #8</a>)
<span class="quote">> (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=146680#c5">comment #5</a>)
> > libepoxy is a small library, we could also add it to ThirdParty if adding
> > the dependency would be a problem
>
> GTK+ already depended on libepoxy (since 3.18 i believe). So it will not be
> a real new dependency at least for WebKitGTK+. But I understand the concern
> for other ports. Would this patch implement something that will be used for
> WebKitGTK+ or it will be shared with other ports?</span >
It's a real dependency as long as we still support older versions of GTK+. It will be shared.
<span class="quote">> GTK+ depends on libepoxy.(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=146680#c6">comment #6</a>)
> > (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=146680#c5">comment #5</a>)
> > > libepoxy is a small library, we could also add it to ThirdParty if adding
> > > the dependency would be a problem
> >
> > I think that would be better than adding a new dependency, which I think is
> > something that the policy didn't cover.
>
> Well, my reading of the policy is that is ok to add a new dependency
> meanwhile at least one of this two preconditions is true:
>
> - The dependency is needed for building WebKitGTK+ and Debian/Ubuntu
> already ships that dependency. The policy is : "WebKitGTK+ should be
> build-adble on the last Ubuntu LTS and last Debian stable" + 1 year since a
> new Debian/UbuntuLTS is released.
> - The dependency is optional (ex: it is needed for some feature that can be
> disabled)
>
> But we should clarify this.. do you think is worth raising the topic another
> time on the mailing list?</span ></pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>