Hi, On 26 August 2015 at 21:17, Bryce Harrington <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:05:28AM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: >> On 25 August 2015 at 00:32, Bryce Harrington <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:32:33PM -0500, Derek Foreman wrote: >> >> Hmm, this is somewhat gross. Is there a solid reason to care about >> >> people who want to run new weston and ancient libdrm? >> > >> > I've been on the other side of this equation. libdrm can be a royal >> > PITA to have to change out, I can totally imagine there are several >> > quite solid reasons one would want to run new weston and oldish libdrm. >> >> Hm, how so? It doesn't break backwards compatibility, only adds new >> symbols; the only exception I can think of is Nouveau when it had its >> ABI break, but that was exceptional in a lot of ways. > > Where I ran into troubles was in relation to proprietary driver madness. > The first time was when we initially introduced poulsbo on Ubuntu, since > it required a special modified libdrm that was a PITA to roll out safely > to users. Second time was enabling Steam on Ubuntu; the Valve guys > needed the ability to "easily" upgrade LTS user's X stack esp. including > NVIDIA drivers; libdrm ended up being the one piece we had to kind of > brute force into place. > > None of which is libdrm's fault. Proprietary drivers just make life > difficult. But I can sympathize with people that find themselves in a > situation where they can't "just upgrade libdrm".
Oh yeah, that makes total sense. The usual scenario here is in the embedded world, where people get a hacked-to-bits BSP from Mentor or similar, and either can't upgrade it, or have to pay some large fee to do so; usually involving re-doing validation. I was just wondering if there were cases where that held true for open systems or not. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
