On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 01:09:11AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 09:16, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 12:14:16AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 23:38, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 02:59:44AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > > These are redundant because libutahglx1 provides libgl1 and > > > > > libutahglx-dev provides libgl-dev. > > > > > > > > They might have to stop doing so; see > > > > <URL: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=148718 >. > > > > > > Then the problems these are trying to solve won't occur in the first > > > place. > > > > Maybe I'm just dense from doing a little Friday-night drinking, but can > > you explain, please? > > The problem in bug #187365 only occurs because libutahglx1 provides > libgl1 and hence satisfies xlibmesa-glu's dependency on xlibmesa-gl | > libgl1 .
Now you've completely lost me. Bug #187365 is "xlibmesa3-glu: libraries not correctly linked". I'm saying that as long as libutahglx1 provides a file called "libGL.so.1", and libutahglx-dev provides a file called "libGL.so", the xlibmesa-gl and xlibmesa-gl-dev packages with have to Conflict/Replace their Utah GLX counterparts. Even if Utah GLX isn't compliant with the OpenGL ABI and thus should stop providing the "libgl1" and "libgl-dev" virtual packages, I presume they'd still ship *files* with the same names. -- G. Branden Robinson | There's no trick to being a Debian GNU/Linux | humorist when you have the whole [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government working for you. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Will Rogers
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
