On Son, 2003-02-02 at 15:09, Sven Luther wrote: > On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 03:05:59PM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > > > >> Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > I still don't get it. There's no incompatibility between > > > > xlibmesa3-gl, xlibmesa4-gl and xlibmesa5-gl to come, so what's the > > > > point of the different names? The worst thing IMHO is > > > > x-window-system-core depending on one particular of these, but I > > > > think it would be much easier for everyone if we had a common name > > > > which reflects the libGL API used. > > > > Don't look at me. The "3" in the mesa packages makes me puke. It's > > old historical baggage (you probably know why it's there in the first > > place -- but don't ask me why the xlibmesa packages have that ugly 3 or > > 4 or whatever in them). As you are well aware of, changing a package's > > name in Debian is next to impossilbe. Provides isn't enough because > > versioned provides don't exist, and that's because everytime the topic > > And because the autobuilders don't like virtual build dependencies, > which is, i think, a worse problem.
Shouldn't be a problem, build dependencies can still be on xlibmesa-gl-dev | libgl-dev or whatever. I'll follow up to Marcelo's post shortly... -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
