Re: xlibmesa naming and relationships
On Sam, 2003-02-08 at 05:36, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 05:29:15PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Fre, 2003-02-07 at 16:53, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> What's irrelevant about it?
Please, keep things in context. It's irrelevant *for the xlibmesa
package name*.
> XFree86 has its versioning system and Mesa
> has its. The XFree86 encapsulates Mesa doesn't mean one should be left
> in ignorance as to what version of Mesa was so encapsulated.
No, I appreciate your wanting to honour the Mesa version number, but you
could do so in the package description, for example, without gratuitous
package name changes.
Let me try to put it yet another way: xlibmesa3-gl and xlibmesa4-gl are
different versions of the same thing. We have package versions for this
purpose, no need to abuse the name.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast
Reply to: