On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:06:57PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> As I said before: If the utah-glx packages stop providing the virtual
> packages, they must either move the conflicting files or C/R the virtual
> packages. There is no realistic scenario where the relations on the
> virtual packages
The list was broken, trying again.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer
Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 05:01, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Look, it's really simple.
Agre
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:06:57PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> As I said before: If the utah-glx packages stop providing the virtual
> packages, they must either move the conflicting files or C/R the virtual
> packages. There is no realistic scenario where the relations on the
> virtual packages
The list was broken, trying again.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer
Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 05:01, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Look, it's really simple.
Agre
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 03:04:36AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > No, that's not enough. They'll still provide libGL.so.1. libGLU has
> > nothing to do with it.
>
> It's all about it, the conflict stems from it, remember? :) Anyway, I
> don't have time to explain this further, take the advice o
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 23:22, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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 "lib
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 03:04:36AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > No, that's not enough. They'll still provide libGL.so.1. libGLU has
> > nothing to do with it.
>
> It's all about it, the conflict stems from it, remember? :) Anyway, I
> don't have time to explain this further, take the advice o
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 23:22, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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 "lib
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 *file
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 *file
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, t
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, t
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, Miche
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, Miche
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 provide
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 provide
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.
> >
>
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 23:38, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 02:59:44AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 23:03, X Strike Force SVN Admin wrote:
> > >
> > > - debian/control:
> > > + xlibmesa3-gl conflicts with and replaces libutahglx1
> > > + xlibmesa-gl-
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.
> >
>
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 23:38, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 02:59:44AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 23:03, X Strike Force SVN Admin wrote:
> > >
> > > - debian/control:
> > > + xlibmesa3-gl conflicts with and replaces libutahglx1
> > > + xlibmesa-gl-
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 02:59:44AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 23:03, X Strike Force SVN Admin wrote:
> >
> > - debian/control:
> > + xlibmesa3-gl conflicts with and replaces libutahglx1
> > + xlibmesa-gl-dev conflicts with and replaces libutahglx-dev
>
> These are red
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 02:59:44AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 23:03, X Strike Force SVN Admin wrote:
> >
> > - debian/control:
> > + xlibmesa3-gl conflicts with and replaces libutahglx1
> > + xlibmesa-gl-dev conflicts with and replaces libutahglx-dev
>
> These are red
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 23:03, X Strike Force SVN Admin wrote:
>
> - debian/control:
> + xlibmesa3-gl conflicts with and replaces libutahglx1
> + xlibmesa-gl-dev conflicts with and replaces libutahglx-dev
These are redundant because libutahglx1 provides libgl1 and
libutahglx-dev provides libgl-
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 23:03, X Strike Force SVN Admin wrote:
>
> - debian/control:
> + xlibmesa3-gl conflicts with and replaces libutahglx1
> + xlibmesa-gl-dev conflicts with and replaces libutahglx-dev
These are redundant because libutahglx1 provides libgl1 and
libutahglx-dev provides libgl-
Author: branden
Date: 2003-09-24 16:02:54 -0500 (Wed, 24 Sep 2003)
New Revision: 580
Modified:
trunk/debian/changelog
trunk/debian/control
Log:
Smooth transitions from the Utah GLX packages' libGL and libGLU
implementation to XFree86's version of the Mesa Project's libGL and libGLU
libraries
Author: branden
Date: 2003-09-24 16:02:54 -0500 (Wed, 24 Sep 2003)
New Revision: 580
Modified:
trunk/debian/changelog
trunk/debian/control
Log:
Smooth transitions from the Utah GLX packages' libGL and libGLU
implementation to XFree86's version of the Mesa Project's libGL and libGLU
libraries
26 matches
Mail list logo
