see below. On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Brian Paul wrote:
> > > Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 09:54:03AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: > > > > However, a consensus has formed of late among the XFree86 developers, in > > > > conjunction with Brian Paul (the mastermind of the Mesa project), that > > > > libGLU should be shipped, built and installed with the rest of Mesa as > > > > part > > > > of the XFree86 distribution. I've corresponded with Brian on this > > > > point, > > > > and he suggests that the 3 libraries, libGL, libGLU, and libOSMesa, be > > > > shipped in one package. I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. > > > > > > What is Debian's policy regarding OpenGL libraries provided by > > > the hardware vendor (NVidia, for example)? Don't we get a > > > packaging conflict here? > > > > No. Debian has a virtual package called "libgl1" which any package > > providing a compliant GL library can "Provide" in the package management > > sense. > > > > However, I'm concerned that not every one of these implementations that > > ships libGL will also ship libGLU and (especially) libOSMesa. Brian, do > > you still think it is a good idea to keep all 3 of these libraries > > together? But then how do you handle binary drivers like nvidia's? or someone writes a gl library for hardware x, he has to distribute everything instead of just his new libgl? I don't understand what the advantage is having one big package is over smaller, more flexible packages. > > Yes. And libGLW.a. > > > > What set of GL libraries can any reasonable GL implementation be > > expected to provide? Only that and no more needs to be handled with this > > mechanism. > > Someone else already mentioned the Linux/OpenGL standard base website. > > -Brian >
