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

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 10:43:12 +0100
Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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>

Thank you all, pushed:
   90718170..efdebbc4  master -> master

Btw. we should be getting alpha release on the 10th, so that's pretty
close now. Do we want a bump to .83 and clean-up before or after 5.0.0
release?

Looking at Emil's list of distributions, I would go for .83 already
right now.


Thanks,
pq
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20180702/c6832943/attachment.sig>