Matijs, > So, it turns out there are even more bugs to consider than just the ones > filed against libutahglx-dev. It seems utah-glx and libutahglx1 are not > marked for removal, so I would primarily be interested in fixing the two > (now three) bugs filed against libutahglx-dev. It seems the patch on > #145977's page is meant to fix both old bugs agains libutahglx-dev. > Incidentally, it fixes 145977 by not claiming mesa compliance anymore. This "patch" is not an actual solution, just a workaround so no other packages get broken by utah-glx. The problem is not that utah-glx is *not* a MESA implementation but rather that it is incomplete. > In conclusion: I will try to avoid the hairy part and just apply the > patch (carefully, of course), and see whether that leads to something > NMU'able. That's fine, since it's what is required to keep the package in unstable, but please don't close the bugs that refer to API errors but set them to normal severity instead (these are still bugs, but since they only break packages that specifically request being built against utah-glx, they are no longer release-critical). The other, trivial ones (like the config.sub stuff) should be closed in the changelog so they are properly marked as fixed. If you have fun, you can also merge the reports that are the same and/or give them better titles. Simon -- GPG Fingerprint: 040E B5F7 84F1 4FBC CEAD ADC6 18A0 CC8D 5706 A4B4
Attachment:
pgpNYIW0Zbznr.pgp
Description: PGP signature