Wine Developers Determining How To Handle Vulkan Loader Support

[plonoma]

Not quite as straight forwards as one would think. A system with 2 video card may see the need for winevulkan ICD to be loaded twice. So plonoma issue is right.

The licensing issue is a complex one. Remember the upstream in this case has already swapped from BSD to apache so even if wine does change from LGPL 2.0+ to LGPL 3.0+ will they change again and we be back in this same problem.

I am very inclined to suggest a 4 option have winetricks install it for now and review this in 12 months time to see if the upstream has truly stabilised on a license then possible have debate about if it install like mono and gecko or if wine changes license..

That's right. Applications may have quirks and lack sophisticated ICD/GPU detection.
An application might not look for multiple GPUs in an ICD or other issues.
The goal of wine should always be to present an environment that is as close as possible to a native windows environment.
If multiple Vulkan ICD's are the norm in a native environment, it's a wise, and maybe necessary, choice to support that in wine.

[VikingGe]

An application might not look for multiple GPUs in an ICD or other issues.

But Vulkan applications do not even know the concept of an ICD. All they see is a list of Vulkan-capable devices, and it simply does not matter if they are all reported by one driver or by multiple different drivers. The Vulkan loader hides that from the application.