On Sam, 2003-02-08 at 01:17, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:04:18AM +0100, Michel D?nzer scrawled: > > Duh, gcc obviously needs _its own_ version in the package name. I was > > talking about xserver3.2-xfree86 (built with gcc 3.2), xlibs2.3.1 (built > > against glibc 2.3.1), ... because those version numbers are about as > > relevant to those packages as the Mesa version number is to xlibmesa. > > I agree entirely with Branden: if the changes are irrelevant, why does > upstream keep bumping the *major* revision number?
I suspect Marcelo could explain this far better than I can, but I'm not sure he's reading this, so I'll try once again: The Mesa version number reflects the progress of the Mesa project. The purpose of the Mesa project (and the xlibmesa packages) is to provide an implementation of the OpenGL specification. Neither the API nor the ABI of the libGL provided by Mesa has changed since Mesa version 3.x at least. PS: Will you please fix the xlibmesa4-drm-src package at least? As I've told you before, the name is broken because the DRM has nothing to do with Mesa, and DRI stands for Direct Rendering _Infrastructure_. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast
