On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 04:12:18PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: > Hi Arkadiusz, > > On 11 July 2017 at 12:48, Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Each Linux distro takes a different spin on providing kernel's uapi > > headers (especialy the *drm*.h). > > > > You can get them with linux-headers, you can get them with libdrm. > > Sometime you can even get them twice, from both sources. > > > Your distro should _not_ provide the files with linux-headers, exactly > for the reasons mentioned. > Please speak with your distro to fix their packaging. That fix is not actually for me. I am just maintaining stuff. My distors are fine, but the header thing seems to be a common headache. > > Sometimes the headers match your kernel version, sometimes you end up > > stuck with headers matching the kernel that the given release of the > > distro came out with. > > > > This makes things harder for code that does not depend on libdrm, as we > > cannot have sane ./configure-time checks. > > > > So let's define LOCAL_ version for FENCE and EXECBUFFER2_WB defines > > until all the stable distros catch up (+/- some epsilon). > > > One could bump the libdrm version in configure, but some distros (same > one as the one doing linux-headers goofups?) are slow to ship new > versions. The version is correct and it is in effect for components that do depend on it. This is for the kernel uapi headers which suffer for being both in kernel-headers (some distro butcher them out though) and in libdrm-dev(el). > Please consider voting for the package so it can be updated in timely > manner, or even lend packagers a hand ;-) > Note this is _not_ an objection to the patch. Adding [temporary] local > makes perfect sense. > > FWIW > Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks, I'll push it in a moment. -- Cheers, Arek _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
