On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:18, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote: > On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 13:20 +0100, Stephane Marchesin wrote: >> 2009/11/6 Kristian Høgsberg <k...@bitplanet.net>: >> > Hi, >> > >> > This has come up a few time and it's something I think makes a lot of >> > sense. Since all driver development (afaik) now happens in linux >> > kernel tree, it makes sense to drop the driver bits from the drm.git >> > repo. I've put up a repo under >> >> Actually, I don't think a separate libdrm makes much sense. We don't >> want to add yet another outside component and ask ourselves questions >> like "how do I maintain compatibility" (which, incidentally, have >> already been raised). >> >> Given this, IMO libdrm live somewhere alongside the kernel. >> Furthermore when pulling outside stuff we driver devs can do a >> kernel+DRM+libdrm pull at the same time which is a win. >> >> And also users don't have to wonder where/how to pick the right >> libdrm. You get the right one with your kernel. > > This is a bad idea. libdrm with the kernel means that users and > distributions can't trivially update libdrm. So all of the users of > libdrm end up being an ifdeffed nightmare of both compile-time and > runtime detection.
Why do you need to update libdrm separately from the kernel? Is there so much that's in libdrm that does not also require a new drm? Newer libdrm functionality usually also requires a new drm... > Our code used to be that way before we fixed libdrm > to be "only use kernel code that's going upstream, and never regress > it". Things have improved in the last few years for upstream drivers, > and I don't want to regress them with moving libdrm to the kernel. Again I don't see what kind of changes you have in mind. You just say "regress". > > This is why I've also argued against having libdrm not install the ioctl > headers. It seems like the argument is mostly that having libdrm keep a > copy of the kernel headers in the repo is bad because people might cp > the file wrong. If the cost of not keeping them in the repo is having > the libdrm and its consumers be ifdef hell, I will keep a cp in the > repo. Now I don't get it. You say versioning libdrm headers is the right thing? Stephane ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
