On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 05:22:29PM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > You dodged my vital question again: > > lol, vital... some people take Debian too seriosly ;-) > > > 'How is the major Mesa version number relevant for the xlibmesa > > package name?' > > It isn't. Going from memory, the changes between 3 and 4 were mostly > related to the rasterization functions, and none of those changes are > visible to the application. Something similar can be said of the > changes between 4 and 5. Some extensions were implemented, but because > of OpenGL's design that's (or should be) irrelevant. > > > Something that provides xlibmesa3-gl, for example. > > Packages shouldn't provide xlibmesa3-gl, it should provide libgl1.
And what about packages that build-depend on xlibmesa3-gl | libgl1 ? if the autobuilder are clever enough to search a libgl1 providing package when xlibmesa3-gl is not there, we could drop the first part anyway ? Friendly, Sven Luther
