On 2 February 2017 at 03:22, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> 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.
>
Agreed. Seemingly I'm one of the few (the only) person silly enough
not to follow the broken(?) approach used by distros.
Either way - I'll add locals hacks to be compatible :-)-Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
