Re: xlibmesa naming and relationships
On Sam, 2003-02-08 at 00:57, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 05:29:15PM +0100, Michel D?nzer scrawled:
> > On Fre, 2003-02-07 at 16:53, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 06:51:52PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > > > How is a major version number relevant for anything? For example, how
> > > > > is it relevant for XFree86?
> > > >
> > > > It isn't, hence no other packages built from the xfree86 source package
> > > > bear a version number in their name. What's your point?
> > >
> > > The major version number used by Mesa is not the same as the one used by
> > > XFree86, except by coincidence.
> >
> > So the Mesa version needs to be engraved in the package name, no matter
> > how irrelevant it is? Why don't you add the versions of gcc, glibc, ...
> > then? ;)
>
> Yeah, so we'll change the package names to gcc2.72, gcc2.95, gcc3.0 and
> gcc3.2!
>
> Hey, wait a minute ...
Duh, gcc obviously needs _its own_ version in the package name. I was
talking about xserver3.2-xfree86 (built with gcc 3.2), xlibs2.3.1 (built
against glibc 2.3.1), ... because those version numbers are about as
relevant to those packages as the Mesa version number is to xlibmesa.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast
Reply to: