On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:32:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Jon Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > /tmp/ccEMh1hu.o(.text+0x32a): undefined reference to `OSMesaCreateContext'
> > /tmp/ccEMh1hu.o(.text+0x35c): undefined reference to `OSMesaMakeCurrent'
> > /tmp/ccEMh1hu.o(.text+0x4f5): undefined reference to `OSMesaDestroyContext'
>
> Hmmm... please submit this as a bug, there's a -lOSMesa missing. I'm
> going to fix the makefiles, so I'm going to stumble across this,
> probably.
On it's way.
> > There are other bins in the mesademos/demos/ directory, which `make
> > clean' does not get rid of (and there's no target `distclean').
> > This, I assume, is a problem with the upstream Makefile, not
> > Branden's customizations.
>
> Branden doesn't maintain mesademos.
>
> /me waves
Sorry, I was reading the Maintainer: line from xlibosmesa-dev when I wrote this. My
apologies for the confusion I've caused.
> > Aside from the does-not-compile issue, I also wonder if it's really
> > so necessary to keep each directory under usr/share/doc/mesademos/ a
> > tarball after installation. It's pretty clear that if someone
> > installs the mesademos package, they want to run the demos.
>
> Oh, is it? For me the demos are more valuable as source code, since
> only a fraction of them are interesting from a end-user's point of
> view.
Absolutely! This is what I meant to say. Shipping the mesademos package in binary
form does not make any sense. There are too many libGL implementations floating
around for that.
> > But compressed? The uncompressed trees take well less than 4MB, and
> > it seems more than a little silly to make someone who is building
> > the demos manually unpack them.
>
> You mean tarred. Like I said, IMO in this case source is more
> important than binaries.
I said that too :)
> I considered shipping everything as single
> files, in ../mesademos/examples/ or something like that, but then I
> would have to compress the individual files (c.f. Policy), which is no
> better than having to unpack the tarred sources.
Why compress them at all? dpkg compresses them anyway; dpkg'ing a compressed file of
any kind is redundant. My question is, "Why must you tar them up at all." My logic
is, "I asked for the sources; dpkg compresses anything you feed to it; compressing the
sources before being added to a deb is a waste of time, and a waste of my time after I
install the package; I expect packages to be usable almost immediately after
installing (aside from editing configuration files, and in this case, a bit of mild
compiling, NOT untarring a package-within-a-package)."
> > Against whom do I file my d-n-c bug and my wishlist bug, respectively?
>
> d-n-c? You lost me. Oh, does-not-compile. I hope you don't mean that
> as in 'serious' because it will be automatically downgraded to normal
> once I get it.
Thanks for your time :)
--
-=|JP|=- "This space intentionally left blank."
Jon Pennington | Debian 2.4 -o)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Auto Enthusiast /\\
Kansas City, MO, USA | Proud Husband and Father _\_V
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
