https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109062
--- Comment #16 from Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> ---
(In reply to Emil Velikov from comment #15)
> It started with a confusing error message and upon closer look behaviour
> seemed fairly different from what you guys wanted.
>
> Since the current solution is OK you guys, please ignore me.
>
> Thanks for the input Ilia. Closing as NOTABUG
The other thing to note is that the only realistic way for this scenario to
occur is to have libdrm v1 in one place and libdrm v2 in another place. If you
allow that to go forth, you would pick libdrm_a from v1, libdrm_b from v2, and
libdrm from which version? I don't think there's a right answer to that
question generically, so IMHO this scenario should just be avoided.
The fix in autotools you referenced was to ensure that e.g. intel wanting a
thing in libdrm core would actually get picked up by the intel_min_version
thing rather than having to bump the super-global libdrm requirement (as that
would affect all drivers).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
