[Xorg] Introduce DRI_VERSION?

[Jens Owen]

Thomas Winischhofer wrote:
> Jens Owen wrote:
> 
>> Thomas Winischhofer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Would you DRI guys mind adding a #define for DRI_VERSION_CURRENT in 
>>> the same style as XORG_VERSION_CURRENT so that changes like the types 
>>> from drmHandle -> drm_handle_t can be handled smoothly with the C 
>>> preprocessor for older versions?
>>>
>>> Point being: I would like to compile my DDX driver with both XFree86 
>>> and X.org as I don't have time to maintain two or more versions. 
>>> Since the preprocessor can't check for typedefs (AFAIK...) a 
>>> DRI_VERSION_CURRENT would come extremely handy.
>>>
>>> That shouldn't cause too much hassle...
>>
>>
>>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> Versioning has always been a tricky issue for DRI developers, and 
>> consequently keeping version numbering simple and up to date is 
>> important.
>>
>> I'd encourage you to considering using/enhancing the existing DRI and 
>> DRM versioning.  For example, I'm wondering if the runtime version 
>> already built into DRM would help.  It could be extended to use 
>> compile time #define's in places where we currently hard code 
>> constants, for example in drmGetLibVersion it looks like the minor 
>> version was just bumped to 2.  The source for the linux version of 
>> this example be seen at:
>>
>>   xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/os-support/linux/drm/xf86drm.c
>>
> 
> Jens, thanks for your response.
> 
> Just to avoid a misunderstanding: This version definition is not meant 
> as an ABI/API/whatever number; I'd just need that for compilation reasons.
> 
> If it is complicated for the DRI folks, why not keep such a version 
> #definition in the x.org tree which is updated each time a merge from 
> the DRI tree happens?
> 
> For example, in xf86drm.h just add
> 
> #define DRI_DATE 20040616
> 
> That would solve my particular problem quite easily. The name of the 
> #define is entirely up to you... choose freely. The date format should 
> be in a form suitable for comparison.
> 
> That isn't too much work, is it?
> 
> Thomas
> 

Thomas,

Adding the define is easy, what's difficult is cleaning up these little 
hacks later without breaking binary compatability.  As Keith W. 
suggested earlier this week, there is a good chance the X portion of the 
DRI development could end up in the X.org project.  What would you set 
the DRI_DATE string to then?

Perhaps it's time to bump the XORG_VERSION_CURRENT string to 
differentiate between the last release of X.org and the next.  Would 
that help you?

-- 
                                /\
          Jens Owen            /  \/\ _
   jens at tungstengraphics.com  /    \ \ \   Steamboat Springs, Colorado