Re: xlibmesa naming and relationships
On Son, 2003-02-02 at 15:09, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 03:05:59PM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >
> > >> Michel Dänzer <daenzer@debian.org> writes:
> >
> > > > I still don't get it. There's no incompatibility between
> > > > xlibmesa3-gl, xlibmesa4-gl and xlibmesa5-gl to come, so what's the
> > > > point of the different names? The worst thing IMHO is
> > > > x-window-system-core depending on one particular of these, but I
> > > > think it would be much easier for everyone if we had a common name
> > > > which reflects the libGL API used.
> >
> > Don't look at me. The "3" in the mesa packages makes me puke. It's
> > old historical baggage (you probably know why it's there in the first
> > place -- but don't ask me why the xlibmesa packages have that ugly 3 or
> > 4 or whatever in them). As you are well aware of, changing a package's
> > name in Debian is next to impossilbe. Provides isn't enough because
> > versioned provides don't exist, and that's because everytime the topic
>
> And because the autobuilders don't like virtual build dependencies,
> which is, i think, a worse problem.
Shouldn't be a problem, build dependencies can still be on
xlibmesa-gl-dev | libgl-dev or whatever.
I'll follow up to Marcelo's post shortly...
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast
Reply to: