Re: Moving amber into separate repo?

Hi Filip!

Others have what explained why copying the repo (and everything around it) is not a good idea, so I'll only reply to the other points.

On 2022-09-22 at 22:37 UTC+02:00, Filip Gawin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, recently I've seen case of user been using Amber when hardware was 
> supported by mainline mesa. This gave me a couple of thoughts.
>
> 1) Users don't correlate "Amber" with "Legacy" and probably it's gonna 
> be best to always also print "Legacy" together with "Mesa".

Could you explain *where* you would like to do this? I don't see what *users* would see where this would help.

> 2) Not sure if problem of choosing best driver is on mesa's or distro 
> maintainer's side, but it became more complicated for maintainers.

I think we should probably add a couple of lines in the meson.build on the amber branch, like this:

if gallium_drivers.count() != 0 or vulkan_drivers.count() != 0
  error("You shouldn't package Gallium or Vulkan drivers from the amber branch; please only enable these in the standard Mesa package build.")
endif

Do you think that would be enough to resolve the distro packages maintainers' confusion?