On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:27:33PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 12:54, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > > > > > The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular, > > > the former can't use direct rendering, while the latter can't use plain > > > X11 rendering. > > > > > > The libGLUs OTOH are both taken from the SGI sample implementation. _If_ > > > there are any significant changes to libGLU, they will much more likely > > > appear in Mesa first. Maintaining xlibmesa-glu as well is a waste of > > > effort. > > > > OK, I can see this, and will add the re-org to the pre1v2 list. > > Thank you. I can look into doing it myself if that would be helpful, but > my time is tight and I might have to get familiar with subversion first. Nah, it's cool. It's work we can all do, and it's not terrifically important. > > Any ideas on what we should call xlibmesa-drm-src and xlibmesa-gl? > > Time for a little brainstorming session? :) > > drm-xfree86-module-src ? (I don't really like drm-trunk-module-src etc. > either though, so if anybody has a better idea... :) > > I can live with xlibmesa-gl, though I like xlibmesa-gl1 better. Another > random idea would be libgl1-xfree86 . Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed. drm-xfree86-module-src is far too long, IMO. How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and friends? If so, why not xfree86-libgl1? -- Daniel Stone <dstone@trinity.unimelb.edu.au> Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne
Attachment:
pgpgcdQcSUqOy.pgp
Description: PGP signature