From: Jesse B. <jb...@vi...> - 2009-11-17 17:07:21
|
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:46:44 +0100 Stephane Marchesin <mar...@ic...> wrote: > > And how do I get releases of libdrm out outside of kernel releases? > > We're doing libdrms at least twice a kernel cycle, because we've got > > stable fixes to push out/new interfaces to start relying on faster > > than every 3 months. > > That's another issue, but 3 months is too quick to be stable (and I > think no one but intel here wants to do 3 months cycles anyway). Btw the kernel releases every 3 months. > That's why libdrm should be following the kernel releases and go along > with it: the kernel gets very wide testing and we'd hook on to that > good testing crowd. Right now libdrm releases are virtually invisible > to the OSS people. There's no serious development, no RCs, etc. Since > wee can't even pretend to do proper releases, I'd say hook on to the > kernel's as those work. I don't see big advantages to packaging it with the kernel, mainly disadvantages. I don't think it'll get wider testing if it's in the kernel, and I don't think compatibility will be easier to maintain. There's a big downside too, since it makes packaging much harder. Distros typically stick with one kernel for a relatively long time, but if they want to pick up a libdrm fix unrelated to a new DRM interface (like the one Remi pointed out) they'll have to grab a recent kernel, extract libdrm, and make sure it works with their current kernel (which may involve some extra work if new DRM interfaces have gone in too). -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center |