>> Jon Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Like Zeph said, though, the packages are most useful in source > *because* you can use different libGL implementations to compile > them. As I understand it (and I'm probably wrong), libGL > implementations vary in the DRI project from one family of drivers to > the next.
No, they don't. They all use, atm, Mesa 3.4.1 as the basic renderer, some provide more hooks for hardware rendering, some provide less, but all use the same entry points, which is exactly my argument: a binary compiled with OpenGL foo is *not* *allowed* to fail with undefined symbols when run with OpenGL bar. If it does, either the program is broken (i.e., it's doing something it should not do, namely, linking extensions at compile time, there's glXGetProcAddressARB, learn to use it, damn it) or OpenGL foo is broken. I compiled and uploaded packages using xlibmesa-dev back when there was no xlibmesa-dev in woody, and noone even noticed. > I see. Have you considered a better place for this to go? What > about converting it from a Documentation class package to something > that would fit under /usr/share/mesademos or similar? Well, the way I see it, it's documentation, not data. I *could* put them on /usr/src, but that's stretching it. -- Marcelo
