On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 12:11:23PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 07:59, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Why is it *desirable* for libgl1 packages built from DRI CVS to satisfy > > this dependency? > > Because users of those packages would like to build something using > libGL sometimes. :)
Do you have a stronger reason than that for me to violate Policy? > > > And I can't build libgl-dev packages from there either because GLw is > > > missing > > > > Do you know why it is missing? > > It's outside the scope of the DRI project so was deemed a waste of space > and build time there. Well, I'm tempted to say that this is your problem (or, more precisely, the problem of people who want to both use your DRI CVS snapshots and build GL-dependent packages). I really do not want to risk people building against unofficial libGL objects. They should probably learn to use debootstrap and chroot for building. -- G. Branden Robinson | Of two competing theories or Debian GNU/Linux | explanations, all other things [EMAIL PROTECTED] | being equal, the simpler one is to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | be preferred. -- Occam's Razor
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
