On Thu 02 Feb 2017, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 2 February 2017 at 13:09, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2 February 2017 at 02:58, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote:
> >> On 02/02/17 09:10 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> >>> On 1 February 2017 at 23:28, Vinson Lee <v...@freedesktop.org> wrote:
> >>>> Fixes: b8acb6b17981 ("configure: Require libdrm >= 2.4.75")
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vinson Lee <v...@freedesktop.org>
> >>> Are you sure that's correct ?
> >>>
> >>> Afaict the follow-up commits make use of updated i915_drm.h which
> >>> should be provided by your distro's libdrm-dev package.
> >>
> >> This seems to be at the heart of the confusion here: Is i915_drm.h part
> >> of libdrm or of libdrm_intel? I'd argue it's the latter, and the fact
> >> that some or even all downstreams ship a single package with all libdrm*
> >> headers is irrelevant. That package also contains all the libdrm_*.pc
> >> files, so Vinson's patch works as intended either way.
> >>
> > Are you saying that there's a single -dev package [libdrm-dev] for
> > everything libdrm* related ?
> > That sounds like a broken distro package... which would explain some
> > of the assumptions/discussions on #dri-devel :-)
>
> That is how all distros ship it.
As Dänzer said, "Vinson's patch works as intended either way".
If this small patch fixes Vinson's problem; breaks no one's setup; and
causes no maintenance burden; then the patch is good.
Is anyone *opposed* to Vinson's patch? (It's hard to tell because all of
the discussion about what distro's do, don't do, and should do).
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
