On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 11:35:36AM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote: > I think there are three points of issue related it. > > > 1) We will ship libGLU or not? > > Perhaps, YES. > I agree your point, currenlty We can not disable libGLU > cleanly (described one more problem on 2). > > > > 2) Build without BuildGLULibrary is not easy. > > Even if we decide libGLU will not ship, we need some more changes > to solve problems > > After my roughly review, another problem is found, > glxinfo will be built disabling GLU support without > libGLULibrary. So, current branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/ settings > does break glxinfo compatibility between previous release. > > > > 3) Purpose of MANIFESTs (I believe) are checking what kind of files > will be installed under debian/tmp, and *.install files or > something updates are needed. > > I think it is not good idea to edit MANIFESTs directly if their > changes are not completely clear. I've committed(and I'll commit) > only after my build checking are done (or someone checked to build > and send MANIFEST to XSF). I think right now, the only sane course of action is to roll debian/ back to its status as of #235 (I think it was 235, but of course I can't check, because not only is the repo inaccessible, but I'm certainly not pulling that much data down my 3gb/mo cable connection), seeing as the action has caused this much consternation (you didn't even see IRC). If the repo doesn't come back soon, I'll just start maintaining my own personal fork, and we're back to where we were, except everyone who's pulling in different directions gets to version said directions. And then we get to the stage where you have me merging all the trees; rinse and repeat every few weeks. sigh, Daniel -- Daniel Stone <daniel@raging.dropbear.id.au> <dstone@kde.org> KDE: Konquering a desktop near you - http://www.kde.org
Attachment:
pgpuEouJaKOa6.pgp
Description: PGP signature