Re: A Round of Removals
Matijs van Zuijlen <Matijs.van.Zuijlen@xs4all.nl> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 02:22:33PM -0500, Lukas Geyer wrote:
> >
> > The API issue is even more hairy. The header of libutahglx-dev claims
> > to be MESA compliant, version >= 3.2. However, it does not provide
> > /usr/include/GL/osmesa.h which is in MESA since 1.2.4 if I can believe
> > the MESA docs. The source package of libutahglx-dev contains that MESA
> > code but it is not built. I am not interested in this package, but if
> > someone takes it over, _please_ check that the package really provides
> > what it claims to. Otherwise it will cause FTBFS and thus
> > release-critical bugs on other packages, like #142129.
>
> This bug complains about a missing osmesa.h. However, this file is not
> even in xlibmesa-dev, but only in xlibosmesa-dev, the development
> package for the off-screen rendering library. So it seems geomview
> should build-depend on that, and depend on xlibosmesa3 as well.
The reason that xlibosmesa-dev does not cause build failures is that
it does not #define MESA in /usr/include/GL/gl.h. geomview is
perfectly able to compile without osmesa.h, but _not_ if the header
defines the preprocessor symbol MESA. In my understanding, off-screen
rendering is part of MESA, and defining MESA would assure that it is
available. However, if you have some documentation that this is the
wrong interpretation, please provide it and I will close the bug.
> From that package's page:
>
> The off-screen rendering library (OSMesa) is an extension to Mesa, not
> an implementation of any OpenGL standard; therefore, it is packaged
> separately, so that any OpenGL-conformant library may be installed on
> a Debian system, and OpenGL-based programs may depend on any of them.
> The OSMesa library, however, specifically depends on the Mesa library.
I never claimed that OSMesa was required by OpenGL. However, it is a
part of MESA and an OpenGL implementation which claims to be MESA
compliant should have it.
Lukas
--
This is not a signature
Reply to: