[PATCH weston] configure.ac: bump libdrm requirement to 2.4.68

[Emil Velikov]

On 2 July 2018 at 10:41, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 July 2018 at 03:07, Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:02:19AM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 11 June 2018 at 10:25, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 09:29:49 +1000
>>> > Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net> wrote:
>>> >> +PKG_CHECK_MODULES(LIBDRM, [libdrm >= 2.4.68], [], [AC_MSG_ERROR([
>>> >>       libdrm is a hard build-time dependency for libweston core,
>>> >>       but a sufficient version was not found. However, libdrm
>>> >>       is not a runtime dependency unless you have features
>>> >
>>> > this patch is correct, but I would like to hear more opinions if we
>>> > want to bump the hard build-time dependency from release of Jan 2012 to
>>> > Apr 2016.
>>> >
>>> > If we do this bump, we could remove the fallback definitions for
>>> > DRM_FORMAT_R8 and DRM_FORMAT_GR88.
>>> >
>>> > In case we want to consider bumping even further, DRM_FORMAT_MOD_* were
>>> > introduced in 2.4.83 (Aug 2017), and atomic in 2.4.78 (Apr 2017).
>>>
>>> I'd be in favour of bumping all the way to .83. It's available in
>>> Debian testing and unstable, as well as for stable (stretch) via the
>>> backports.debian.org repository. It's available for Ubuntu 16.04 LTS
>>> via the xenial-updates repository, and releases since. It's available
>>> in Yocto Rocko (Oct 2017), but unsurprisingly not in Pyro (May 2017);
>>> I believe there are a few BSPs based on Pyro and earlier still, but
>>> they would be pretty trivial bumps to include if vendors want to
>>> upgrade Weston.
>>>
>>> Either patch is:
>>> Acked-by: Daniel Stone <daniels at collabora.com>
>>
>> pekka: gentle ping, if you're happy with this one
>>
> On Debian front:
> - oldstable: 2.4.74 in backports
> - stable: 2.4.74 in main, 2.4.91 in backports
>
> Ubuntu:
>  - 16.04: 2.4.83 in xenial-updates
>  - 14.04: 2.4.67 in trusty-updates
>
> In other words, Trusty is def. out of the question: I'd go with this
> patch for now to unblock.
> Might want to bump to .83 closer to the release/branch point.
>
Should have added: As-is patch is
Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov <emil.velikov at collabora.com>

-Emil