Re: XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
see below.
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Brian Paul wrote:
>
>
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 09:54:03AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> > > > However, a consensus has formed of late among the XFree86 developers, in
> > > > conjunction with Brian Paul (the mastermind of the Mesa project), that
> > > > libGLU should be shipped, built and installed with the rest of Mesa as part
> > > > of the XFree86 distribution. I've corresponded with Brian on this point,
> > > > and he suggests that the 3 libraries, libGL, libGLU, and libOSMesa, be
> > > > shipped in one package. I see no compelling reason to do otherwise.
> > >
> > > What is Debian's policy regarding OpenGL libraries provided by
> > > the hardware vendor (NVidia, for example)? Don't we get a
> > > packaging conflict here?
> >
> > No. Debian has a virtual package called "libgl1" which any package
> > providing a compliant GL library can "Provide" in the package management
> > sense.
> >
> > However, I'm concerned that not every one of these implementations that
> > ships libGL will also ship libGLU and (especially) libOSMesa. Brian, do
> > you still think it is a good idea to keep all 3 of these libraries
> > together?
But then how do you handle binary drivers like nvidia's? or someone writes
a gl library for hardware x, he has to distribute everything instead of
just his new libgl? I don't understand what the advantage is having one
big package is over smaller, more flexible packages.
>
> Yes. And libGLW.a.
>
>
> > What set of GL libraries can any reasonable GL implementation be
> > expected to provide? Only that and no more needs to be handled with this
> > mechanism.
>
> Someone else already mentioned the Linux/OpenGL standard base website.
>
> -Brian
>
Reply to: