On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:58:26AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 05:33, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> If they stop providing those virtual packages, they have to move the
> files or conflict with the virtual packages.
>
> To summarize, the underlying problem is that the utah-glx packages
> haven't adapted to the new (GLU-less) meaning of libgl1 and libgl-dev
> yet. Whether they adapt to it or stop providing them, the conflicts on
> the virtual packages will suffice, no need for explicit conflicts in
> xlibmesa-gl{,-dev}.No, that's not enough. They'll still provide libGL.so.1. libGLU has nothing to do with it. -- G. Branden Robinson | When dogma enters the brain, all Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual activity ceases. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Anton Wilson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
