Created attachment 634636 [details] Configuration log x11-drivers/xf86-video-intel-2.99.917_p20200310 seems to require x11-libs/libdrm-2.4.101, which is masked. It fails during configure phase with the following message: ``` checking for XORG... no configure: error: Package requirements (xorg-server >= 1.6 xproto fontsproto damageproto pixman-1 >= 0.16 randrproto renderproto xextproto) were not met: Package dependency requirement 'libdrm >= 2.4.101' could not be satisfied. Package 'libdrm' has version '2.4.100', required version is '>= 2.4.101' Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you installed software in a non-standard prefix. Alternatively, you may set the environment variables XORG_CFLAGS and XORG_LIBS to avoid the need to call pkg-config. See the pkg-config man page for more details. ```
It doesn't require libdrm 2.4.101. What does this command say? $ grep -r 'libdrm' /usr/{lib,lib64,share}/pkgconfig
Created attachment 634716 [details] grep -r 'libdrm' /usr/{lib,lib64,share}/pkgconfig
/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/dri.pc:Requires.private: libdrm >= 2.4.101 You need to reemerge Mesa :)
Uhm, I don't understand. Can you explain what happened? I'd like to understand if there's something I did wrong or there's a missing dependency somewhere.
1) libdrm-2.4.101 was released with a bug that broke DRI driver loading under Firefox's sandbox. This was reported as bug 716574. 2) I package.mask'd libdrm-2.4.101 to limit the number of people experiencing this breakage 3) In doing so, we discovered that Mesa stored the exact libdrm version it was built against in its dri.pc. So if you build Mesa against libdrm-2.4.101 and then downgraded libdrm (due to the package.mask) anything that checked dri.pc would fail to build since 2.4.101 was not installed. 4) I fixed Mesa upstream (https://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/commit/?id=e4268ffb99279f46d9785bdccb6617022924a6c2) and the patch was cherry picked to the 20.0 stable branch in time for the 20.0.5 release 5) I made a revision bump of the 20.0.4 -> 20.0.4-r1 to encourage people to rebuild, so that their dri.pc did not contain an unnecessarily high version dependency on libdrm. 6) You did not rebuild Mesa :)
