[Xorg] Introduce DRI_VERSION?

[Thomas Winischhofer]

Jens Owen wrote:
>>> 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.  

Again: What I suggest has nothing to do with binary compatibility. It is 
just for compiling one and the same DDX code with different DRI 
versions. However, I understand that this is something not many would 
need. Perhaps I am just too kind to people stuck with Debian stable 
(XFree86 4.1)...? ;)

 > 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?

Erm.... got me, didn't consider that.


> 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?

Yes, sure.

Thomas

-- 
Thomas Winischhofer
Vienna/Austria
thomas AT winischhofer DOT net	       *** http://www.winischhofer.net
twini AT xfree86 DOT org