Re: A Round of Removals (utah-glx)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: A Round of Removals (utah-glx)
- From: Philip Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 17:28:27 -0800
- Message-id: <20021031172827.A20680@bolthole.com>
- Mail-followup-to: email@example.com
- Reply-to: Philip Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 06:23:47AM +0900
- References: <20021026172841.GB4557@azure.humbug.org.au> <email@example.com> <20021026195547.GA9272@tatonka.pfalz.de> <20021031173601.GC3561@mvz.xs4all.nl> <20021031164033.GA5632@phobos.fs.tum.de> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 06:23:47AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> ...It shouldn't really provide libgl-dev, because every program
> that build depends on libgl-dev seems to fail to build with
Apologies for not knowing the ins and outs of libgl-dev, but --
is there any revision specification for libgl-dev, that indicates
"is compliant with 'this' particular revision of the OpenGL spec" ?
Also, there is the side issue that there are a lot of "broken"
OpenGL programs out there. utah-glx does not provide all possible
extensions. However, properly written OpenGL programs are SUPPOSED to
query for existence of an extension, and work around it if not present.
Unfortunately, a lot of linux OpenGL progs dont do that, it seems.
Strictly speaking, utah-glx DOES provide an opengl development environment.
If you want "provides libgl-dev" to have more meaning than that, then
please specify that somehow.