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

Re: xlibmesa-gl1-dri-mach64



On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 04:09:48PM +0100, David Baron wrote:
> If one installs this one, the following would be removed:
> 
> Remv libqt3-mt-dev (3:3.2.3-2 Debian:testing)
> Remv x-window-system (4.3.0-5 Debian:unstable)
> Remv x-window-system-core (4.3.0-5 Debian:unstable)
> Remv xlibmesa-dri (4.3.0-5 Debian:unstable)
> Remv xlibmesa-glu-dev (4.3.0-5 Debian:unstable)
> Remv xlibmesa-gl-dev (4.3.0-5 Debian:unstable)
> Remv xlibmesa-gl (4.3.0-5 Debian:unstable) 

Are all the following going to be removed too? (not clear with the []
parenthesis).

> [libqt3c102-mt kdiff3 
> libk3bproject1 kcontrol libglpng gl-117 xbase-clients muse xlibmesa-glu 
> libglut3 libk3btools1 libk3bplugin1 xawtv billard-gl qt3-dev-tools foobillard 
> guarddog k3b kdenetwork-kfile-plugins libk3bcore1 libk3bcore2 qt3-designer 
> libwxgtk2.4 libwine flightgear kxconfig pia scribus celestia plib1c102 
> libsdl-perl libfltk1.1c102 doomlegacy kcdlabel filelight alsaplayer-gtk kgeo 
> rosegarden4 ]
> 
> Since I was running without x-window-system until now, I suppose I could let 
> that go but the other stuff?
> 

x-window-system and x-window-system-core are virtual dependency
packages so you don't really need them.

xlibmesa-gl and xlibmesa-dri are being replaced by the new package
(which provides xlibmesa-gl iirc).

The dev files are a problem. They depend on specific versions of the
originals which is why they are being removed. They are needed to
compile some things not for standard operation. The main issue IIRC is
that libqt3-mt-dev is needed for make xconfig under 2.6, but you can do
make gconfig instead.

Another option is to open the xlibmesa-gl-dev package and remove the
version dependency in it (problematic but works). IIRC all the other
problematic devs are through a dependency with that one.

> I rarely succede in actually using libqt3-me-dev but presumable should be able 
> to use it. What about the rest of xlibmesa? All the stuff in brackets?
> 
> What gives here?
> 



Reply to: