Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Mar 2010 02:16:27 +0100 | From | Luc Verhaegen <> | Subject | Re: [git pull] drm request 3 |
| |
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 05:08:00PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > > > > libdrm is composed of the main libdrm, and several driver specific > > libdrms today (... and libkms, yes). > > It's actually not libdrm that is the primary issue, I'm sorry for saying > that. > > It's the nouveau_drv.so thing - the actual X driver. > > Anyway, since I had looked at the libdrm sources, I had most of this on my > machine anyway, so I've compiled it all, and am going to reboot and see if > I can make a few symlinks work. > > IOW, right now I have this: > > [root@nehalem ~]# cd /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers/ > [root@nehalem drivers]# ll nouveau_drv.so* > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 2010-03-04 17:00 nouveau_drv.so -> nouveau_drv.so-0.0.16 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 343784 2010-03-04 16:59 nouveau_drv.so-0.0.15 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1698805 2010-03-04 16:59 nouveau_drv.so-0.0.16 > > and I'll see if that works (yeah, yeah, I didn't strip the thing, and > it's compiled with whatever defaults that probably include debugging too, > so it's huge). > > Quite frankly, I still think that I shouldn't have to play these kinds of > games. I think the versioning should be built in. And I still think that > "staging" is not an excuse for "it's bad crap, and we don't care" > > Linus
In an ideal world, you shouldn't be forced to update anything except some/all of the driver bits.
But the fact that libdrm is lumped together as it is, and that mesa is a monolith, forces you to update a more significant portion of your system. You have to resort to some serious manual labour to get around that atm.
Luc Verhaegen.
| |