[PATCH 1/2] glamor: add support for allocating linear buffers

[Dave Airlie]

>
>> at which point you'd want to continue
>> the versioning from the mesa point to avoid epochs. So I don't
>> take your argument, the API version is what we ship in the gbm.pc
>> file, compatible implementations should make the same API changes
>> in their same versions.
>>
> Other companies may use different versionning schemes (YYYY/MM/DD) and
> which they cannot shift away from for whatever reason. Based on that
> (plus the libEGL <> libgbm ABI mentioned above) sticking with "use
> mesa's version" seems a bit impossible/narrow minded imho. I think we
> can all agree things are less than perfect and checking the version in
> the pc file is not a good idea.

gbm.pc is the gbm API version number. It isn't the Mesa version number,
it just happens at the moment they are the same thing because nobody
has split them, and because there isn't much value to Mesa in doing so.

Other projects implementing the gbm API need to use the same version
number for their gbm.pc file. it sucks but otherwise they are not API
compatible. This doesn't mean they cannot use other versioning schemes
for their project, but their gbm.pc needs to be compatible with Mesa.

But yes checking the version sucks and I'd rather not do it, but it doesn't
escape the fact that other gbm implementations are currently doing it
wrong if they want to be API compatible.

Dave.