On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 11:36:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 05:29:15PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > On Fre, 2003-02-07 at 16:53, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > The major version number used by Mesa is not the same as the one used by > > > XFree86, except by coincidence. > > > > So the Mesa version needs to be engraved in the package name, no matter > > how irrelevant it is? > > What's irrelevant about it? XFree86 has its versioning system and Mesa > has its. The XFree86 encapsulates Mesa doesn't mean one should be left > in ignorance as to what version of Mesa was so encapsulated.
If I may chime in, I, as a graphics developer very much want to know what version of OpenGL I'm using, due to the fact different extensions are available in the different versions. So even though I think the version-number in the package-name is butt ugly and hard to remember it does fulfill a task, and that is letting me know which extensions I can expect to find in there. /Peter Toneby -- Alpha Test Version: Too buggy to be released to the paying public. Beta Test Version: Still too buggy to be released. Release Version: Alternate pronunciation of "Beta Test Version". -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
