[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] igt: Add LOCAL defines for distro compatibility

[Arkadiusz Hiler]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 04:12:18PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Hi Arkadiusz,
> 
> On 11 July 2017 at 12:48, Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler at intel.com> wrote:
> > Each Linux distro takes a different spin on providing kernel's uapi
> > headers (especialy the *drm*.h).
> >
> > You can get them with linux-headers, you can get them with libdrm.
> > Sometime you can even get them twice, from both sources.
> >
> Your distro should _not_ provide the files with linux-headers, exactly
> for the reasons mentioned.
> Please speak with your distro to fix their packaging.

That fix is not actually for me. I am just maintaining stuff.

My distors are fine, but the header thing seems to be a common headache.

> > Sometimes the headers match your kernel version, sometimes you end up
> > stuck with headers matching the kernel that the given release of the
> > distro came out with.
> >
> > This makes things harder for code that does not depend on libdrm, as we
> > cannot have sane ./configure-time checks.
> >
> > So let's define LOCAL_ version for FENCE and EXECBUFFER2_WB defines
> > until all the stable distros catch up (+/- some epsilon).
> >
> One could bump the libdrm version in configure, but some distros (same
> one as the one doing linux-headers goofups?) are slow to ship new
> versions.

The version is correct and it is in effect for components that do depend
on it.

This is for the kernel uapi headers which suffer for being both in
kernel-headers (some distro butcher them out though) and in
libdrm-dev(el).

> Please consider voting for the package so it can be updated in timely
> manner, or even lend packagers a hand ;-)
> Note this is _not_ an objection to the patch. Adding [temporary] local
> makes perfect sense.
> 
> FWIW
> Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>

Thanks, I'll push it in a moment.

-- 
Cheers,
Arek