[PATCH xserver] configure.ac: bump epoxy requirement to 1.2

[Adam Jackson]

On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 12:19 -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > From: Emil Velikov <emil.velikov at collabora.com>
> > 
> > As pointed out in the ABI tracker[1], epoxy has gone through a few
> > non-backwards compatible ABI changes, yet preserved the DSO name.

I don't particularly object to bumping the required version, but...

> > Most noticeable of which, from xserver POV, in epoxy_has_egl_extension()
> > - s/EGLDisplay */EGLDisplay/.

This happens not to matter. If you read the corresponding commit you'll
see that the parameter was always treated as an opaque pointer anyway:

https://github.com/anholt/libepoxy/commit/e20b3ce6c7895f355fd1bad81b45341d98b5ee76

> > Eric, iirc Dave had some ideas about moving libepoxy to fd.o [+ making
> > it the canonical/upstream source] and was looking for your blessing.
> > 
> > How is that going ? The state of the github repo looks tragic.
> 
> ajax and anholt were talking about epoxy's status at XDC. Cc'ing ajax.

I'm honestly on anholt's side here about leaving upstream on github.
fdo is lovely and all but the contribution model for people not already
in posession of an fdo account is terrible. Moving epoxy to fdo would
be a step backwards, and we should continue to hold out on that front
until fdo grows better collaborative hosting.

The more serious issue to me is that epoxy needs a release, and that
release should involve merging up the various forks on github. (This is
an argument _in favor_ of github: not only was it easy for people to
create their forks, but we can track them all down easily.) I'm sure
epoxy isn't Eric's first priority (which is entirely reasonable) so
it's kind of up to him how to proceed here.

- ajax