Re: Testing/mesademos
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 10:26:13AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Jon Pennington <dren@whack.org> writes:
>
> > Absolutely! This is what I meant to say.
>
> Oh, sorry, I missunderstood.
It looked that way :)
> > Shipping the mesademos package in binary form does not make any
> > sense. There are too many libGL implementations floating around for
> > that.
>
> Actually, this is a tempting reason to ship them as binaries. The
> program *can not* fail with "undefined symbol foobar". If it does,
> either the program is badly broken or the OpenGL implementation used to
> compile it is even more broken. But no, I'm not going to do this for
> this reason.
Like Zeph said, though, the packages are most useful in source *because* you can use different libGL implementations to compile them. As I understand it (and I'm probably wrong), libGL implementations vary in the DRI project from one family of drivers to the next. Shipping binaries simply isn't a good idea the way I see it. (I smoke a lot of crack, though, so don't quote me)
> > Why compress them at all?
>
> Policy. I would install the files on
> /usr/shared/doc/mesademos/examples, which makes them documentation,
> which falls under this:
>
> Any additional documentation that comes with the package may be
> installed at the discretion of the package maintainer. Text
> documentation should be installed in a directory
> `/usr/share/doc/<package>', where <package> is the name of the
> package, and compressed with `gzip -9' unless it is small.
I see. Have you considered a better place for this to go? What about converting it from a Documentation class package to something that would fit under /usr/share/mesademos or similar?
<I'm going to contradict myself here>
What about going ahead and shipping them as a binary that *would* fit under /usr/bin or similar; going on and compiling them against the standard shipping Mesa package. This would mean that people using alternate libGLs would have to become familiar with dpkg-buildpkg (actually, I usually just use `apt-get source -b packagename'), but that may be a smaller price to pay in the long run.
</contradiction>
--
-=|JP|=- "This space intentionally left blank."
Jon Pennington | Debian 2.4 -o)
dren@penguinpowered.com | Auto Enthusiast /\\
Kansas City, MO, USA | Proud Husband and Father _\_V
Reply to: