Package: glut-doc
Version: 3.7-25
Severity: important
--------------------------------------
I have no manpages for glut. And before I upgraded to sarge I *had*
them. ie, man glutReshapeWindow
Its a pet peive: since I have a fully written opengl app to port to
linux and plan to use GLUT for the GUI.
I'm sick of DM's splitting SIMPLE DOWNLOADS into 8 peices and KILLING
the documentation in the process!
I'm scared that Debian's DM's are ignoring the Social Contract. Free
Glut is CERTAINLY a slightly revised SGI product which INSTALLS OVER
SGI's OpenGL released libraries. And I hear in the "mentor's mailing
list" that some maintainers think I'm stupid for thinking that I should
be able to retrograde packages from Woody: the fellow state that progress of
Debain is more important than previously packaged app compatibility: and
we can see that here with freeglut clearly.
I have no manpages for glut. And before I upgraded to sarge I *had*
them. ie, glutReshapeWindow
I then did this on another machine:
apt-get install glutg3 glutg3-dev libglut3 glut-doc glut-data
libglut3-dev glutg3-dev freeglut3 freeglut3-dev
And again, find /usr/share/man/ -name "*glut*" returns no even a broken
link.
Here's what I installed on two different machines:
Package: glut-doc
Package: glutg3
Package: glut-data
Package: libglut3-dev
Package: libglut3
Package: freeglut3
Package: freeglut3-dev
Package: freeglut3-dbg
It's ??LKJSDF:LKS ONE .tar.gz now its 8 installs?
--------------------------------------
I can't *beleive* debian dropped SGI's "glut". While free glut may be
better in some person's view: I must rather link against a library
everyone has for sake of making binary distirbutions.
I'm sure of SGI's ability to keep OpenGL withing GL specs (per pixel
existence and color garuntee for most of GL being of critical importance).
How do we know SGI won't release another downstream? Joe packager
of freeglut says "he doesn't think so.
So what. I have to install glut-3.6 in a chroot linux to make sure an
app I'll distribute works with freeglut? How do I install the OLD glut?
Do I install Potato's GLUT? Wait. No potato packages aren't compatible
anymore. I could install WOODY's.
However. I've been told in the Debian Mentor's channel that Debian
Maintainers feel that being backward compatible with Woody is stupid.
So. I'm stupid!!!!!!!!!
So I'll ask:
Why does Debian's docs refer to old version installations if
Debian maintainers think it's not necessary?
How do I get the origional glut installed?
How do I get glut docs installed?
Oh SHIT. Woody has glut-3.3!!! Woody isn't up to date either.
--> debian doesn't have an up to date SGI glut.
Why the does Debians Social Contract say can't you offer
altered softwares that isntall over an official release already
in the public??
What is the alternatives system for when joe anyone can clobber
SGI's libraries?
Why was POOL made by origional debian maintainers if not to
store packages to make them available to ALL debian releases
(except Potato, the documentated exception).
Or are the mentors just pulling my chain?
Alright. I'm stupid. Send me an scathing answer: like DM's usually do
no matter how nice the email is: But I'm getting tired DM's throwing
away the best intentions of the origional members.
Should I tell all other linux and windows users to upgrade to *my* idea
of a better glut and make all their applications run against it?
(costing them a good hour of wasted time in the process)? Maybe I
should beg them to and tell them I'm a cripple ware guy.
That's why joe should have named his project "freeglut" and kept his
package quite separate from the REAL glut unless this guy *garuntees* he
won't diverge the compatibility for his own purposes: and can he do
that? Promises promises.
Not a happy camper. Getting tired of Debian's new compatibility issues
with previous Debian releases and DM's saying that old packages aren't really
needed because of their timestamp and because no DM has time to simply
put them in the next release.
For instance - I previsouly discovered BIND's documentation was missing
altogether in my version of sarge. The author said "what
documentation?" And when I sent him a definitive list: he didn't reply.
John Hendrickson
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i586)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.10-mm
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)
Versions of packages glut-doc depends on:
ii freeglut3-dev 2.2.0-7 OpenGL Utility Toolkit development
-- no debconf information
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
