Keith Whitwell wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Jens -
>>
>>
>>> Can you try with the old libdri.a, but the new libdrm.a. That's where I
>>> would expect the dependency for the new drmCommand interface to be
>>> resolved.
>>>
>>
>> But that's exactly what the SF binary packages give you - they give
>> you a new libdrm.a as a matter of course, but not libdri.a. Updating
>> only libdrm.a doesn't seem to be good enough any more (used to work!)
>> - now there's a dependency on libdri.a too.
>
>
> I think we'll have to add libdri.a to the binaries. I don't really see
> any way around this -- we want to distribute infrastructure improvements
> as well as driver ones.
Agreed, but we don't want them coupled. Otherwise independent releases
will start pulling in old infrastructures. If we maintain backwards
compatability (already a stated goal), then we should be able to allow
the infrastructure to move forward regardless of how old the driver
suite is.
--
/\
Jens Owen / \/\ _
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ \ \ Steamboat Springs, Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by:
ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
