RFR: 8232210: Update Mesa 3-D Headers to version 19.2.1

[Phil Race]

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 00:43:08 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov <serb at openjdk.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 23:05:46 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <kcr at openjdk.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 23:05:44 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <kcr at openjdk.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> This PR updates the header files we use the build the OpenGL ES2 pipeline to Mesa 19.2.1. See [this review thread](https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2019-October/010372.html) for the equivalent change that is under review for Java2D.
>>> 
>>> The updates to the `gl.h` and `glx.h` files are large, since we are many, many years behind.
>>> 
>>> The `*ext.h` header files were updated fairly recently, so those diffs are not large.
>>> 
>>> Previously we used to get the `*ext.h` headers from Khronos, but now we get all the headers from the Mesa project.
>>> 
>>> This reduces the number of upstream sources we need to monitor.
>>> 
>>> I note that with this update, the `glxext.h` and `wglext.h` files are slightly older in the Mesa bundle than in Khronos, but the differences are not relevant to FX.
>>> 
>>> I did a full build and test on Mac and Linux and a sanity build (with `-PINCLUDE_ES2=true`) on Windows. I also verified that the build artifacts are unchanged.
>>> 
>>> As with the Java2D change, the licensing terms are the same as before, but since we no longer get files directly from Khronos, the `opengl_fx.md` file is gone and the `mesa3d.md` is updated as required to mention these files.
>>> 
>>> ----------------
>>> 
>>> Commits:
>>>  - 7a520adc: 8232210: Update Mesa 3-D Headers to version 19.2.1
>>> 
>>> Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/26/files
>>>  Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/jfx/26/webrev.00
>>>   Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8232210
>>>   Stats: 1515 lines in 8 files changed: 1076 ins; 269 del; 170 mod
>>>   Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/26.diff
>>>   Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx pull/26/head:pull/26
>> 
>> Reviewers: @prrace, @arapte, @johanvos
> 
> Not sure but should not the license be GPL+CP in some of these files?

> Not sure but should not the license be GPL+CP in some of these files?

It is not necessary.

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/26