On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 05:06:29PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Son, 2003-02-02 at 16:49, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 04:17:52PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > (I got to get myself a Radeon before that happens[0]) and that's just > > > > easier if I have a separate GLU package. The other reason was to have > > > > a GLU package that the nvidia packages can depend on. I *hate* the way > > > > the current packages work (depending on the xlibmesa packages just to > > > > divert their libGL files out of the way). > > > > > > I don't have anything against the separate GLU packages, on the > > > contrary, I appreciate it a lot for the DRI snapshot packages, where I > > > had to use similar ugly tricks. > > > > > > My point is that the semantics of the libgl1 virtual package have > > > changed from 'libGL.so.1 and libGLU.so.1' to 'libGL.so.1 only', which > > > breaks packages that depend on libgl1 only but need libGLU. Did you > > > consider this, and what were your plans to handle it? > > > > Fix the packages that depend on it ? I already did so with my packages, > > anyway, you have to changes the dependencies, since you don't have > > xlibmesa but xlibmesa-gl and xlibmesa-glu, now (and yes, i (build) depend on > > xlibmesa-gl | libgl1 and so). > > Sure, packages will get the correct dependencies, but the same would be > true for a new libgl1-noglu virtual package. Why break libgl1 > deliberately?
It is shorter ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
