Bug#187365: xlibmesa3-glu: libraries not correctly linked

["Marcelo E. Magallon" <mmagallo@debian.org>]

>> Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:

 > We could just as well ask why we bother to ship xlibmesa*, then.
 > 
 > I would like to know why the answers to your question and the above
 > should be different.

 The best answer I can come up with?  Because someone is bound to create
 a CD which doesn't include the mesa packages (because it's mesa and
 it's slow and it's software and who in their same mind would want to
 use that and it's not the cool thing of the day) yet he'll need libGLU
 for one reason or another[0].

 Other than that, it's just code duplication.  Modulo some compilation
 flags, both libGLU binaries are likely the same.  "mine" is much easier
 to build, though (it doesn't take 2+ GB of space ;-)

 [0] The one function not provided by libGL but libGLU used by -- dare I
 come up with a statistic on the spot -- 90% of the OpenGL programs out
 there is gluPerspective, which is a small wrapper for gluFrustum.  The
 next in line is probably gluBuild2DMipmaps, which unlike gluPerspective
 is larger two or three lines of code, and is in fact larger than a
 screenful.

 > N.B., I'm not opposed to having the XFree86 packages stop shipping
 > the Mesa libraries, I just want to have a coherent reason for doing
 > so.

 No, not the mesa libraries, just libGLU.  The libGL in the XFree86
 packages is a different beast when you compare it to the libGL
 libraries coming out of the mesa packages.  Same API, binary
 compatible, but totally different behaviour when it comes down to the
 nitty gritty.

 Marcelo