On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 23:22, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:58:26AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 05:33, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > >
> > > Even if Utah GLX isn't compliant with the OpenGL ABI and thus should
> > > stop providing the "libgl1" and "libgl-dev" virtual packages, I presume
> > > they'd still ship *files* with the same names.
> >
> > If they stop providing those virtual packages, they have to move the
> > files or conflict with the virtual packages.
> >
> > To summarize, the underlying problem is that the utah-glx packages
> > haven't adapted to the new (GLU-less) meaning of libgl1 and libgl-dev
> > yet. Whether they adapt to it or stop providing them,
... or stay the way they are ...
> > the conflicts on the virtual packages will suffice, no need for
> > explicit conflicts in xlibmesa-gl{,-dev}.
>
> No, that's not enough. They'll still provide libGL.so.1. libGLU has
> nothing to do with it.
It's all about it, the conflict stems from it, remember? :) Anyway, I
don't have time to explain this further, take the advice or leave it.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer
Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
