On Sam, 2003-04-26 at 23:58, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 03:16:21PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > On Don, 2003-04-03 at 07:59, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 12:12:09AM +0200, Marco d'Itri scrawled: > > > > /usr/X11R6/lib/libGLU.so.1 -lGL > > > > > > Hold on, doesn't this render the entire -gl/-glu fix moot? > > > > No, why? libGLU depends on libGL (which isn't reflected in the > > xlibmesa*-glu dependencies due to this bug), I guess the rationale > > behind the split was that not every app that uses libGL also uses > > libGLU. > > > > Anyway, why not simply drop xlibmesa*-glu, seeing as they are the same > > thing as libglu1-mesa, except that they tend to be more buggy? > > We could just as well ask why we bother to ship xlibmesa*, then. > > I would like to know why the answers to your question and the above > should be different.
Because the libGL provided by mesag3 doesn't seem to be able to load the DRI drivers (though that might just be a matter of how it's built). Because there can be libGL development in DRI/XFree86, whereas libGLU is taken verbatim from the SGI SI (DRI CVS doesn't even contain libGLU anymore). ... > N.B., I'm not opposed to having the XFree86 packages stop shipping the > Mesa libraries, I just want to have a coherent reason for doing so. So far nobody has suggested to stop shipping any Mesa libraries AFAICS. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
