[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] meson: drop the xcb-xrandr version requirement

[Erik Faye-Lund]

On Sat, 2019-02-02 at 12:58 -0500, Marek Olšák wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 12:41 PM Eric Engestrom <
> eric.engestrom at intel.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, 2019-02-02 10:32:15 -0500, Marek Olšák wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 7:17 AM Eric Engestrom <
> > eric.engestrom at intel.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Friday, 2019-02-01 15:42:17 -0500, Marek Olšák wrote:
> > > > > If there is no feedback soon, I'll push this.
> > > >
> > > > Have you tested that xcb-randr < 1.12 works?
> > > > Probably shouldn't remove a restriction unless you're sure it
> > isn't
> > > > needed :)
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Is this a joke? I'm just mirroring autotools. Supporting the same
> > linux
> > > distributions as autotools is a requirement for meson's general
> > acceptance.
> > 
> > No, I'm being serious: just because a restriction didn't exist on
> > autotools doesn't mean that code path was exercised by people
> > running
> > an old xcb-randr, hence the need to test it :)
> > 
> > I didn't mean to offend you, I was just asking the question to make
> > sure
> > this was tested before we claim to support xcb-randr < 1.12, as it
> > might
> > be that autotools was simply missing the version check.
> 
> Ok. I use old xcb-xrandr on some of my systems, one of them used to
> be my main system. Not being able to use meson on those systems
> without this patch is a big deal for me.

This sounds like you have indeed tested on xcb-randr < 1.12, so I
suppose the answer to the question is "yes"? If so, I think it's all
good, no?

Anyway, I think this seems like the right move, and since Keith has't
responded, feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Erik Faye-Lund <erik.faye-lund at collabora.com>