On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:32:16PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > >> Jon Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > /tmp/ccEMh1hu.o(.text+0x32a): undefined reference to `OSMesaCreateContext' > > /tmp/ccEMh1hu.o(.text+0x35c): undefined reference to `OSMesaMakeCurrent' > > /tmp/ccEMh1hu.o(.text+0x4f5): undefined reference to `OSMesaDestroyContext' > > Hmmm... please submit this as a bug, there's a -lOSMesa missing. I'm > going to fix the makefiles, so I'm going to stumble across this, > probably.
On it's way. > > There are other bins in the mesademos/demos/ directory, which `make > > clean' does not get rid of (and there's no target `distclean'). > > This, I assume, is a problem with the upstream Makefile, not > > Branden's customizations. > > Branden doesn't maintain mesademos. > > /me waves Sorry, I was reading the Maintainer: line from xlibosmesa-dev when I wrote this. My apologies for the confusion I've caused. > > Aside from the does-not-compile issue, I also wonder if it's really > > so necessary to keep each directory under usr/share/doc/mesademos/ a > > tarball after installation. It's pretty clear that if someone > > installs the mesademos package, they want to run the demos. > > Oh, is it? For me the demos are more valuable as source code, since > only a fraction of them are interesting from a end-user's point of > view. Absolutely! This is what I meant to say. Shipping the mesademos package in binary form does not make any sense. There are too many libGL implementations floating around for that. > > But compressed? The uncompressed trees take well less than 4MB, and > > it seems more than a little silly to make someone who is building > > the demos manually unpack them. > > You mean tarred. Like I said, IMO in this case source is more > important than binaries. I said that too :) > I considered shipping everything as single > files, in ../mesademos/examples/ or something like that, but then I > would have to compress the individual files (c.f. Policy), which is no > better than having to unpack the tarred sources. Why compress them at all? dpkg compresses them anyway; dpkg'ing a compressed file of any kind is redundant. My question is, "Why must you tar them up at all." My logic is, "I asked for the sources; dpkg compresses anything you feed to it; compressing the sources before being added to a deb is a waste of time, and a waste of my time after I install the package; I expect packages to be usable almost immediately after installing (aside from editing configuration files, and in this case, a bit of mild compiling, NOT untarring a package-within-a-package)." > > Against whom do I file my d-n-c bug and my wishlist bug, respectively? > > d-n-c? You lost me. Oh, does-not-compile. I hope you don't mean that > as in 'serious' because it will be automatically downgraded to normal > once I get it. Thanks for your time :) -- -=|JP|=- "This space intentionally left blank." Jon Pennington | Debian 2.4 -o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Auto Enthusiast /\\ Kansas City, MO, USA | Proud Husband and Father _\_V
