Re: xlibmesa naming and relationships

[Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>]

On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 05:06:29PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Son, 2003-02-02 at 16:49, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 04:17:52PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > >  (I got to get myself a Radeon before that happens[0]) and that's just
> > > >  easier if I have a separate GLU package.  The other reason was to have
> > > >  a GLU package that the nvidia packages can depend on.  I *hate* the way
> > > >  the current packages work (depending on the xlibmesa packages just to
> > > >  divert their libGL files out of the way).
> > > 
> > > I don't have anything against the separate GLU packages, on the
> > > contrary, I appreciate it a lot for the DRI snapshot packages, where I
> > > had to use similar ugly tricks.
> > > 
> > > My point is that the semantics of the libgl1 virtual package have
> > > changed from 'libGL.so.1 and libGLU.so.1' to 'libGL.so.1 only', which
> > > breaks packages that depend on libgl1 only but need libGLU. Did you
> > > consider this, and what were your plans to handle it?
> > 
> > Fix the packages that depend on it ? I already did so with my packages,
> > anyway, you have to changes the dependencies, since you don't have
> > xlibmesa but xlibmesa-gl and xlibmesa-glu, now (and yes, i (build) depend on
> > xlibmesa-gl | libgl1 and so).
> 
> Sure, packages will get the correct dependencies, but the same would be
> true for a new libgl1-noglu virtual package. Why break libgl1
> deliberately?

It is shorter ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther