On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 03:05:59PM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > Hi Michel, > > thanks for the Cc: ... > > >> Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > I still don't get it. There's no incompatibility between > > > xlibmesa3-gl, xlibmesa4-gl and xlibmesa5-gl to come, so what's the > > > point of the different names? The worst thing IMHO is > > > x-window-system-core depending on one particular of these, but I > > > think it would be much easier for everyone if we had a common name > > > which reflects the libGL API used. > > Don't look at me. The "3" in the mesa packages makes me puke. It's > old historical baggage (you probably know why it's there in the first > place -- but don't ask me why the xlibmesa packages have that ugly 3 or > 4 or whatever in them). As you are well aware of, changing a package's > name in Debian is next to impossilbe. Provides isn't enough because > versioned provides don't exist, and that's because everytime the topic
And because the autobuilders don't like virtual build dependencies, which is, i think, a worse problem. Friendly, Sven Luther
