On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2 February 2017 at 02:33, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> 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 bit of libdrm as well. Fix >> this. >> > Haven't checked this explicitly, but I'm leaning that at least one > piece is broken. > If you are to change this, you must ensure that things build with the > numbers provided.
I'm still not 100% sure what you're referring to. On the off chance that this change breaks some legitimate situation, we can revert it, or fix it up for the situation in question. Note that definition of "legitimate" isn't always going to be "it used to work" - sometimes things work but aren't worth supporting. (And sometimes they are.) Given Chad and Dave's reviews, and I believe some on-irc support for this approach, I'm going ahead and pushing this. Cheers, -ilia _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
