[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Where is libgl? [Wrong question?]



On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 07:38:58PM -0800, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> >>>>> "James" == James A Treacy <treacy@debian.org> writes:
> 
>     James> All packages providing OpenGL support will 'Provides:
>     James> libgl1'.  (when versioned provides become available, that
>     James> will be changed to 'Provides: libgl1 (== 1.2)').
> 
> I'm not sure if depending on a feature that's not available yet is
> such a good idea. If (for some stupid reason) someone packages an
> OpenGL library that only supports OpenGL 1.1 or 1.0, how are we going
> to have dpkg know that this library is no good for many programs?
> 
We are not depending on the feature yet. We are counting on the
feature being implemented before we need to use versioned provides.
It could be argued that this is just as bad, given our record in
adding new features to dpkg.

> There are a lot of features in OpenGL 1.2 that aren't in 1.1, and
> in 1.1 that aren't in 1.0. And we need to make a way for packages
> to depend on >= 1.0, >= 1.1, or >= 1.2.
> 
> Maybe have OpenGL packages Provide: libgl1.0, libgl1.1, libgl1.2? This
> would work, but then packagers of OpenGL libraries will need to add
> lots and lots of Provides in the future..
> 
This is why I didn't go with this approach.

> Personally, I say wait until woody, and then recompile all packages to
> link with libGL, and get rid of libMesaGL.
> 
If we can figure out what is wrong with NURBS and get a fix in 3.1, will
your objection go away? Ignore the fact that the current package doesn't
provide symlinks for libMesa as the next package of mesa will include them.

-- 
James (Jay) Treacy
treacy@debian.org


Reply to: