Re: xlibmesa naming and relationships
On Sam, 2003-02-08 at 00:57, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 05:29:15PM +0100, Michel D?nzer scrawled:
> > On Fre, 2003-02-07 at 16:53, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 06:51:52PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > > > How is a major version number relevant for anything? For example, how
> > > > > is it relevant for XFree86?
> > > >
> > > > It isn't, hence no other packages built from the xfree86 source package
> > > > bear a version number in their name. What's your point?
> > >
> > > The major version number used by Mesa is not the same as the one used by
> > > XFree86, except by coincidence.
> > So the Mesa version needs to be engraved in the package name, no matter
> > how irrelevant it is? Why don't you add the versions of gcc, glibc, ...
> > then? ;)
> Yeah, so we'll change the package names to gcc2.72, gcc2.95, gcc3.0 and
> Hey, wait a minute ...
Duh, gcc obviously needs _its own_ version in the package name. I was
talking about xserver3.2-xfree86 (built with gcc 3.2), xlibs2.3.1 (built
against glibc 2.3.1), ... because those version numbers are about as
relevant to those packages as the Mesa version number is to xlibmesa.
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast