On Thursday, February 2, 2017 7:35:20 AM PST Chad Versace wrote: > On Thu 02 Feb 2017, Dave Airlie wrote: > > On 2 February 2017 at 13:09, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 2 February 2017 at 02:58, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote: > > >> On 02/02/17 09:10 AM, Emil Velikov wrote: > > >>> On 1 February 2017 at 23:28, Vinson Lee <v...@freedesktop.org> wrote: > > >>>> Fixes: b8acb6b17981 ("configure: Require libdrm >= 2.4.75") > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Vinson Lee <v...@freedesktop.org> > > >>> Are you sure that's correct ? > > >>> > > >>> Afaict the follow-up commits make use of updated i915_drm.h which > > >>> should be provided by your distro's libdrm-dev package. > > >> > > >> This seems to be at the heart of the confusion here: Is i915_drm.h part > > >> of libdrm or of libdrm_intel? I'd argue it's the latter, and the fact > > >> that some or even all downstreams ship a single package with all libdrm* > > >> headers is irrelevant. That package also contains all the libdrm_*.pc > > >> files, so Vinson's patch works as intended either way. > > >> > > > Are you saying that there's a single -dev package [libdrm-dev] for > > > everything libdrm* related ? > > > That sounds like a broken distro package... which would explain some > > > of the assumptions/discussions on #dri-devel :-) > > > > That is how all distros ship it. > > As Dänzer said, "Vinson's patch works as intended either way". > > If this small patch fixes Vinson's problem; breaks no one's setup; and > causes no maintenance burden; then the patch is good. > > Is anyone *opposed* to Vinson's patch? (It's hard to tell because all of > the discussion about what distro's do, don't do, and should do).
I'm not opposed. Normally, this is what we do. Bumping LIBDRM_INTEL_REQUIRED when we need a new i915_drm.h seems totally reasonable to me. I don't know of any setup that ships multiple libdrm (why?!)...but it seems like if you have a new enough libdrm_intel, you'll have a new enough i915_drm.h. That said...this case is a /little/ different...because we're introducing a dependency on libsync.h, which is part of core libdrm. I don't think it's an Intel-specific file, though it is currently only used in i965... I don't know that it makes much difference.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev