Re: xlibmesa naming and relationships
On Sam, 2003-02-08 at 15:16, Peter Toneby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 11:36:28PM -0500, 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? 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.
>
> If I may chime in,
> I, as a graphics developer very much want to know what version of OpenGL
> I'm using, due to the fact different extensions are available in the
> different versions. So even though I think the version-number in the
> package-name is butt ugly and hard to remember it does fulfill a task,
> and that is letting me know which extensions I can expect to find in
> there.
But you can't know that from the major Mesa version. It depends whether
direct rendering is enabled or not and in the former case what version
of which DRI driver, DRM, ... you're using. The only way to know is to
query the supported features.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast
Reply to: