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
