This libdrm_nouveau thing belongs to the libdrm source package. Looking at the build dependencies, it should be possible to backport it.

How do you look a the build dependencies ? I'm not accustomed to backporting. If you mean with dpkg, it's says me that it's version 2.4.40-1.

apt-cache showsrc libdrm-nouveau2. The Build-Depends line.

It says unable to locate package libdrm-nouveau2, with Synaptic I found libdrm-nouveau1a

The libdrm-nouveau2 is from Debian jessie. My answer may not be directly applicable, because I see you are not actually using Debian. Can you post the output of dpkg -l | grep libdrm into your question?

I updated the question with the output.

I found out that this problem is a "bug" (scroll to the last post): crunchbang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=26784 Is it harmful if I modify the libdrm_nouveau.pc from 0.6 to 2.4.40 ?

I'm not sure what the correct fix is (us.generation-nt.com/… is not coming up here), but clearly you need to use a newer version.

Ok, I'll go up compiling libdrm from:dri.freedesktop.org/libdrm/libdrm-2.4.58.tar.gz Is there anything I should consider before naively follow the instructions on the README file ? It just say ./configure -> make -> make install (I wil use checkinstall). Oh, do I need to delete the old libdrm packages ?

I managed to finish the tutorial but met problems again. I've updated my post up there.

No, doing a local install is generally a bad idea. Install a binary instead, or recompile on the system. Or figure out how to fix what your system is reporting. I'm unclear what the problem is, but I gather that your system thinks it is not the right version of drm when it is?

While compiling Mesa 10.0.5, it didn't said anything about libdrm_nouveau since I recompiled libdrm-2.4.58 from source: dri.freedesktop.org/libdrm So it seems everything went good as planned about the version. I also found more weirdness with glxgears after installing Mesa 10.0.5, I pasted the output up there. I do agree that installing a deb is better. But the problem is I have no choice since It means fetching it from Jessie. In consequence a lot of installed dependencies from there must be done and means breakages and a lot more unstability. How do you recompile on the system ?

If you want help rebuilding libdrm on your system, create another question. If there are problems with yourinstalled version, does your OS not supply a fixed version? Regardless, rebuilding a version from jessie or wheezy will probably work. Check and see which Debian release best corresponds to your system. From your post, it sounds like it would be wheezy, which has libdrm version number 2.4.40. I assume that would fix your problem?

The problem now is no more libdrm since I recompiled it, but Mesa 10.0.5 itself. Kali Linux is just Debian Wheezy stable plus patches around the kernel level.

Using locally compiled software in your system in my experience significantly increases the probability of problems. If you have a local install of libdrm, I suggest you replace that with a proper system installation. The new problem you are seeing could be related to that install.

What do you mean by fixed version ? Kali is shipped with libdrm 2.4.40 (and also libdrm-nouveau1, libdrm-intel1 and libdrm-radeon1), taken directly from debian repositories. I may have understand now, so how do I perform a proper system rebuilding of libdrm for Wheezy ?

My understanding from the information contained in your question is that the version of libdrm-nouveau is 2.4.40, but configure is seeing 0.6.You then installed a locally compiled version. If any of this is incorrect, please say so. Well, as I said, installing a locally compiled version is not a good way to address the problem. You should replace it with a fixed binary. Having said that, you appear to have exactly the same version on your system as I do on Debian wheezy. Some things to note: (1) avoid installing locally compiled packages into your system as far as possible.

No good will come of it. Occasionally installing stuff locally that nothing in your system depends on is Ok, but that is not the case here. (2) If you want an upgrade version of mesa, make a backport, not a local compilation. This has an overwhelmingly higher chance of building and working correctly. (3) you might want to consider just using regular Debian instead of a derivative. If you want to tweak the kernel, you can do so in Debian too. For right now I suggest the following: remove all locally compiled packages from your system as far as possible.

(2) try backporting mesa, if you really want to. But I suggest you write another question about that. This one is really a mess. You can reference this question for background. I'm not sure what is with the 0.6 thing, but I suggest shelving that for the moment and trying to build a mesa backport.