[Mesa-dev] [PATCH mesa 1/2] meson: centralise the libdrm versions information

Emil Velikov emil.l.velikov at gmail.com
Thu Feb 1 17:43:35 UTC 2018


On 31 January 2018 at 17:11, Dylan Baker <dylan at pnwbakers.com> wrote:
> Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-01-31 03:42:00)
>> On 30 January 2018 at 21:31, Dylan Baker <dylan at pnwbakers.com> wrote:
>> > Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-01-30 10:43:06)
>> >> On 29 January 2018 at 18:57, Dylan Baker <dylan at pnwbakers.com> wrote:
>> >> > Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-01-29 10:15:50)
>> >> >> The big comment is taken from the equivalent block in configure.ac
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom at imgtec.com>
>> >> >> ---
>> >> >>  meson.build                                 | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++--------
>> >> >>  src/gallium/targets/d3dadapter9/meson.build |  2 +-
>> >> >>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/meson.build            |  2 +-
>> >> >>  3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> diff --git a/meson.build b/meson.build
>> >> >> index 0a00798c2a5093ec803b..6d7a8e976ff6ad002d9a 100644
>> >> >> --- a/meson.build
>> >> >> +++ b/meson.build
>> >> >> @@ -41,6 +41,20 @@ pre_args = [
>> >> >>    '-DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Mesa"',
>> >> >>  ]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> +# The idea is that libdrm is distributed as one cohesive package, even
>> >> >> +# though it is composed of multiple libraries. However some drivers
>> >> >> +# may have different version requirements than others. This list
>> >> >> +# codifies which drivers need which version of libdrm. Any libdrm
>> >> >> +# version dependencies in non-driver-specific code should be reflected
>> >> >> +# in the first entry.
>> >> >> +libdrm_version           = '2.4.75'
>> >> >> +libdrm_amdgpu_version    = '2.4.89'
>> >> >> +libdrm_etnaviv_version   = '2.4.82'
>> >> >> +libdrm_freedreno_version = '2.4.82'
>> >> >> +libdrm_intel_version     = '2.4.75'
>> >> >> +libdrm_nouveau_version   = '2.4.66'
>> >> >> +libdrm_radeon_version    = '2.4.71'
>> >> >
>> >> > Is there any reason we can't just make these (for example):
>> >> > libdrm_radeon_version    = '>= 2.4.71'
>> >> >
>> >> > Since that avoids all of the format calls?
>> >> >
>> >> Is there particular reason why meson doesn't allow plain
>> >> concatenation, and one must go through the format dance?
>> >> Off the top of my head, I think that most higher level programming
>> >> languages (including python) have it, making for clearer and more
>> >> obvious code.
>> >>
>> >> That aside:
>> >> A huge +1 from me on the idea, although the libdrm_foo checks should
>> >> become libdrm && libdrm_foo.
>> >> See commit 2b4eaabff01a3a8ea0c4742ac481492092c1ab4f.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Emil
>> >
>> > I'm confused by that commit. pkg-config is supposed to handle this, libdrm_intel
>> > (for example) has `Requires : libdrm` in it, so when you generate libs you get
>> > `-ldrm_intel -ldrm`. Why do we need to check libdrm as well? If it's just that
>> > we need to make sure that the version matches we should fix the pkg-config files
>> > in libdrm to set `Requires : libdrm >= version`. Or am I missing something?
>> >
>> Only libdrm_intel has Requires: libdrm. Everyone else has the
>> 'correct' Requires.Private
>> Thus adding a version check won't be enough.
>>
>> Personally the commit feels like a workaround but Dave and Ilia wanted
>> it, so we went ahead.
>>
>> -Emil
>
> If we need to ensure that the versions of libdrm == libdrm_* then
> Requires.private is the wrong field to use. What do you think the correct thing
> to do here is?
>
The perfect solution is to go back in time ;-) That aside, I'd stick
with what Dave/Ilia is suggesting.

-Emil


More information about the mesa-dev mailing list