On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Johannes Obermayr
johannesoberm...@gmx.de wrote:
Am Friday, 3. June 2011, 03:48:39 schrieb Sedat Dilek:
From [1]:
--- a/configure.ac
+++ b/configure.ac
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ dnl Versions for external dependencies
LIBDRM_REQUIRED=2.4.24
LIBDRM_RADEON_REQUIRED=2.4.24
LIBDRM_INTEL_REQUIRED=2.4.24
+LIBDRM_NOUVEAU_REQUIRED=0.6
...
0.6?
$ cat /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libdrm_nouveau.pc | grep Version
Version: 0.6
Isn't it right?
AFAICS the (minimum) version of mesa/drm (libdrm) is required here (see [1]).
Dunno much about nouveau and its requirements.
- Sedat -
P.S.:
The patch management for mesa (dri-devel) could be indeed a bit
improved/revised (regarding your FDO Bug 35441).
Some (trivial) patches of mine got lost or resent months (one even
years) later by someone else and finally got accepted.
Also, I remind some a candidate for 7.10 were not committed to
7.10-git branch.
My patchset (IIRC from January) to remove driver and core date from
kernel-drm and libdrm simply was ignored.
FYI: From mesa(-git) driver-date was removed a few months back.
No answer off-hand how to do things more effectively, but I am
...with you in spirit (from Hybris shooter-game on Amiga).
[1] http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm
- Sedat -
[1]
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/commit/?id=873379a8818eed9ab16c2472
8b7091a3a3705c5b
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
