Jens Owen wrote: > > > 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.
Fair enough. I'm not sure exactly what needs to be done to achieve that, however. Keith ------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/ _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
