[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] configure: Only require libdrm 2.4.75 for intel.

[Chad Versace]

On Thu 02 Feb 2017, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 7:35:20 AM PST Chad Versace wrote:
> > On Thu 02 Feb 2017, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > On 2 February 2017 at 13:09, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 2 February 2017 at 02:58, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:
> > > >> On 02/02/17 09:10 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> > > >>> On 1 February 2017 at 23:28, Vinson Lee <vlee at freedesktop.org> wrote:
> > > >>>> Fixes: b8acb6b17981 ("configure: Require libdrm >= 2.4.75")
> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Vinson Lee <vlee at 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.
> > 
> > As Dänzer said, "Vinson's patch works as intended either way".
> > 
> > If this small patch fixes Vinson's problem; breaks no one's setup; and
> > causes no maintenance burden; then the patch is good.
> > 
> > Is anyone *opposed* to Vinson's patch? (It's hard to tell because all of
> > the discussion about what distro's do, don't do, and should do).
> 
> I'm not opposed.  Normally, this is what we do.
> 
> Bumping LIBDRM_INTEL_REQUIRED when we need a new i915_drm.h seems
> totally reasonable to me.  I don't know of any setup that ships
> multiple libdrm (why?!)...but it seems like if you have a new enough
> libdrm_intel, you'll have a new enough i915_drm.h.
> 
> That said...this case is a /little/ different...because we're
> introducing a dependency on libsync.h, which is part of core libdrm.
> I don't think it's an Intel-specific file, though it is currently only
> used in i965...
> 
> I don't know that it makes much difference.

The libsync.h problem should be solved by imirkin's patch
"[PATCH 1/2] configure: libdrm is a single package, no split different versions".
It effectively makes the libdrm requirement the max of LIBDRM_REQURIED
and LIBDRM_${DRIVER}_REQUIRED.