On Thursday, February 2, 2017 9:15:47 AM PST Chad Versace wrote: > On Thu 02 Feb 2017, Emil Velikov wrote: > > From: Emil Velikov <[email protected]> > > > > They are versions of the respective libdrm package. They are _not_ the > > version of libdrm[.so] required for driver X. > > > > Doing the latter will lead to combinatoric explosion and in all fairness > > things will likely be broken most of the time. > > > > To make things even more confusing the kernel UAPI is provided by libdrm > > itself. > > > > Cc: Vinson Lee <[email protected]> > > Cc: Kenneth Graunke <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <[email protected]> > > --- > > Ken, you/Chad have things spot on. Yet semes like other people struggle > > deeply with these. > > Actually, I agree with airlied and imirkin. I made a mistake when > I bumped LIBDRM_REQUIRED.
Me too...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
