>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
The best answer I can come up with? Because someone is bound to create a CD which doesn't include the mesa packages (because it's mesa and it's slow and it's software and who in their same mind would want to use that and it's not the cool thing of the day) yet he'll need libGLU for one reason or another[0]. Other than that, it's just code duplication. Modulo some compilation flags, both libGLU binaries are likely the same. "mine" is much easier to build, though (it doesn't take 2+ GB of space ;-) [0] The one function not provided by libGL but libGLU used by -- dare I come up with a statistic on the spot -- 90% of the OpenGL programs out there is gluPerspective, which is a small wrapper for gluFrustum. The next in line is probably gluBuild2DMipmaps, which unlike gluPerspective is larger two or three lines of code, and is in fact larger than a screenful. > 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. No, not the mesa libraries, just libGLU. The libGL in the XFree86 packages is a different beast when you compare it to the libGL libraries coming out of the mesa packages. Same API, binary compatible, but totally different behaviour when it comes down to the nitty gritty. Marcelo
