On 3 February 2017 at 01:41, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 2 February 2017 at 02:33, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>> The intent of the libdrm_driver version limits has always been to not
>>> burden the "other" drivers with updating their libdrm unless real
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 2 February 2017 at 02:33, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> The intent of the libdrm_driver version limits has always been to not
>> burden the "other" drivers with updating their libdrm unless really
>> necessary. Unfortunately the configure script er
On Wed 01 Feb 2017, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> The intent of the libdrm_driver version limits has always been to not
> burden the "other" drivers with updating their libdrm unless really
> necessary. Unfortunately the configure script erroneously only checked
> the driver-specific bit and not the generic
On 2 February 2017 at 02:33, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> The intent of the libdrm_driver version limits has always been to not
> burden the "other" drivers with updating their libdrm unless really
> necessary. Unfortunately the configure script erroneously only checked
> the driver-specific bit and not t
The intent of the libdrm_driver version limits has always been to not
burden the "other" drivers with updating their libdrm unless really
necessary. Unfortunately the configure script erroneously only checked
the driver-specific bit and not the generic bit of libdrm as well. Fix
this.
Signed-off-b
