Bug#568901: marked as done ([x11proto-dri2-dev] New version 2.2 needed)
Your message dated Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:01:57 +0100
with message-id <4B705195.9030806@ens-lyon.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#568901: [x11proto-dri2-dev] New version 2.2 needed
has caused the Debian Bug report #568901,
regarding [x11proto-dri2-dev] New version 2.2 needed
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
568901: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=568901
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: x11proto-dri2-dev
Version: 2.1-1
Severity: normal
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
I am trying to compile ati graphic driver from git, but it stops with:
checking for DRI... configure: error: Package requirements (libdrm >=
2.2 xf86driproto) were not met:
No package 'libdrm' found
Is this due to older version of this package?
--- System information. ---
Architecture: amd64
Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-rc8.markinfo
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
500 testing www.debian-multimedia.org
500 testing gd.tuwien.ac.at
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Marek Straka wrote:
> Package: x11proto-dri2-dev
> Version: 2.1-1
> Severity: normal
>
> --- Please enter the report below this line. ---
>
> I am trying to compile ati graphic driver from git, but it stops with:
>
There's already a pretty recent git snapshot in experimental, do you
need a more recent one?
> checking for DRI... configure: error: Package requirements (libdrm >=
> 2.2 xf86driproto) were not met:
>
> No package 'libdrm' found
>
> Is this due to older version of this package?
>
Why don't you install libdrm-dev ?
Brice
--- End Message ---
Reply to: