On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 03:02:34PM +0100, Michel D?nzer scrawled: > On Don, 2003-02-06 at 06:05, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:32:55PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > > On Mit, 2003-02-05 at 21:24, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > > > > Given that the soversion isn't terribly meaningful in the case of Mesa, > > > > in my opinion the library package name should communicate the major > > > > version number of Mesa itself. > > > > > > I still don't see how that is meaningful. > > > > It appears to be meaningful to the upstream developers of Mesa! > > Sure, so isn't it funny that the current actual Mesa packages aren't > called mesag5*? That's Marcelo's call. > Anyway, we're discussing the xlibmesa packages here, and you're still > dodging the question how it's meaningful for those. Branden already answered you, and so did I. The significance lies in the major version. It's obviously meaningful to Mesa, if they continue to bump *major* versions, it must mean they're doing something pretty ... well, major, right? > > > Well, I am trying to get work done, with packages that have a > > > relationship to those in question, and I think it's unnecessarily > > > hard, for no good reason. > > > > What's hard about it? > > It breaks every time the name changes. So depend on the virtual libgl1/libglu1. -- Daniel Stone <dstone@trinity.unimelb.edu.au> Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne
Attachment:
pgpWoBsbuyWeu.pgp
Description: PGP signature