>On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:04:25 -0600 >Mike McCarty <mike.mcca...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Matthew Burgess wrote: > > On a very new system (linux-2.6.33 + libdrm-2.4.18) I see the same > > thing. Looking at the README in the tarball for libdrm: > > > > "New functionality in the kernel DRM drivers typically requires a > > new libdrm, but a new libdrm will always work with an older kernel." > > > > As such, I think the right thing to do in this scenario is to just > > let libdrm overwrite the headers it wants to install. > > That sounds right to me. The library contains the actual code > that is going to be called by the application, and it sets the > standard for how to do the calls, so as it provides the actual > API, it should set the include headers. > > Mike
Then should libdrm be built as soon as possible when bootstrap building BLFS so as to minimise the chance that some other package will build against Linux drm headers? And try to prevent interface incompatibility in that way? -AKuktin -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
