On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 03:16:21PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Don, 2003-04-03 at 07:59, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 12:12:09AM +0200, Marco d'Itri scrawled: > > > /usr/X11R6/lib/libGLU.so.1 -lGL > > > > Hold on, doesn't this render the entire -gl/-glu fix moot? > > No, why? libGLU depends on libGL (which isn't reflected in the > xlibmesa*-glu dependencies due to this bug), I guess the rationale > behind the split was that not every app that uses libGL also uses > libGLU. > > Anyway, why not simply drop xlibmesa*-glu, seeing as they are the same > thing as libglu1-mesa, except that they tend to be more buggy? We could just as well ask why we bother to ship xlibmesa*, then. I would like to know why the answers to your question and the above should be different. N.B., I'm not opposed to having the XFree86 packages stop shipping the Mesa libraries, I just want to have a coherent reason for doing so. -- G. Branden Robinson | The noble soul has reverence for Debian GNU/Linux | itself. branden@debian.org | -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpsH_iwVsZ48.pgp
Description: PGP signature