On Sat, 2019-02-02 at 12:58 -0500, Marek Olšák wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 12:41 PM Eric Engestrom < > eric.engest...@intel.com wrote: > > On Saturday, 2019-02-02 10:32:15 -0500, Marek Olšák wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 7:17 AM Eric Engestrom < > > eric.engest...@intel.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, 2019-02-01 15:42:17 -0500, Marek Olšák wrote: > > > > > If there is no feedback soon, I'll push this. > > > > > > > > Have you tested that xcb-randr < 1.12 works? > > > > Probably shouldn't remove a restriction unless you're sure it > > isn't > > > > needed :) > > > > > > > > > > Is this a joke? I'm just mirroring autotools. Supporting the same > > linux > > > distributions as autotools is a requirement for meson's general > > acceptance. > > > > No, I'm being serious: just because a restriction didn't exist on > > autotools doesn't mean that code path was exercised by people > > running > > an old xcb-randr, hence the need to test it :) > > > > I didn't mean to offend you, I was just asking the question to make > > sure > > this was tested before we claim to support xcb-randr < 1.12, as it > > might > > be that autotools was simply missing the version check. > > Ok. I use old xcb-xrandr on some of my systems, one of them used to > be my main system. Not being able to use meson on those systems > without this patch is a big deal for me.
This sounds like you have indeed tested on xcb-randr < 1.12, so I suppose the answer to the question is "yes"? If so, I think it's all good, no? Anyway, I think this seems like the right move, and since Keith has't responded, feel free to add: Reviewed-by: Erik Faye-Lund <erik.faye-l...@collabora.com> _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
