Re: xlibmesa naming and relationships
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 01:31:24PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Sure, so isn't it funny that the current actual Mesa packages aren't
> > called mesag5*?
>
> That's Marcelo's call.
JFTR, no, I won't start calling these packages mesa5 (if I ever rename
these package, rest assured that I'm going to drop the "g"). The
reason is twofold:
* If you really want to know which version of Mesa you are using,
there is always grep-installed[0] or a equivalent method.
* Policy dictates that the soname is to be engraved in the package
name, because that information conveys useful data. Like I said
multiple times already, the current 3 is just baggage. At the
present moment, there's no good reason to be anal retentive and
rename the packages. Renaming packages is asking for trouble
because I can't guarantee that mesa3g will be replaced by <foo>.
*If* I decide to change the names, it will be something like mesa-gl1.
[0] $ cat `which grep-installed`
#!/bin/sh
grep-status -F Status -e '^install ok installed$' | grep-dctrl "$@"
> It's obviously meaningful to Mesa, if they continue to bump *major*
> versions, it must mean they're doing something pretty ... well,
> major, right?
Like communicating users that some internal overhaul went on...
otherwise it's relevant only to those people that suffer from a common
disease sometimes called "chronic versionitis". The usual sympton is
an urge to upgrade to the product with the largest version number for
no other reason than this number being larger. Taking advantage of
this, major drug dealers started using four-digit version numbers
arround the dawn of the present millenium.
Back on topic, from the package manager POV, that is an irrelevant
fact, since said overhaul didn't modify the public interfaces.
--
Marcelo
Reply to: