Re: Where is libgl? [Wrong question?]
>>>>> "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?
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..
James> The big question is when. Should we get the mesa 3.1 based
James> packages into potato or wait until the next release?
James> Putting them into potato means one of two things: all
James> packages depending on opengl are recompiled and linked with
James> -lGL or all packages providing opengl provide a link
James> libGL.so.1 <- /usr/lib/libMesa.so.3. I'll bring up this
James> point in a separate thread on debian-devel.
Personally, I say wait until woody, and then recompile all packages to
link with libGL, and get rid of libMesaGL.
But that's just IMHO. YMMV. HTH. HAND.
Ben
--
Brought to you by the letters O and G and the number 19.
"Well, I think Perl should run faster than C. :-)"
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer of Gimp and GTK+ -- http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: