You remove public functions... is this enough for a so version bump? On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Ben Skeggs <skeggsb at gmail.com> wrote:> From: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs at redhat.com> > > Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs at redhat.com> > --- > configure.ac | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac > index b929d36..7678572 100644 > --- a/configure.ac > +++ b/configure.ac > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ > > AC_PREREQ([2.63]) > AC_INIT([libdrm], > - [2.4.65], > + [2.4.66], > [https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=DRI], > [libdrm]) > > -- > 2.6.3 > > _______________________________________________ > Nouveau mailing list > Nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau
Er hm, I guess if it never had external users, it's OK. And so then old userspace should still work with new libdrm? On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:> You remove public functions... is this enough for a so version bump? > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Ben Skeggs <skeggsb at gmail.com> wrote: >> From: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs at redhat.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs at redhat.com> >> --- >> configure.ac | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac >> index b929d36..7678572 100644 >> --- a/configure.ac >> +++ b/configure.ac >> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ >> >> AC_PREREQ([2.63]) >> AC_INIT([libdrm], >> - [2.4.65], >> + [2.4.66], >> [https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=DRI], >> [libdrm]) >> >> -- >> 2.6.3 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nouveau mailing list >> Nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau
On 7 December 2015 at 14:24, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:> Er hm, I guess if it never had external users, it's OK. And so then > old userspace should still work with new libdrm?That doesn't seem right. new libdrm shouldn't break old mesa. Dave.