On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 11:12:25AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 04:35, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote: > > >>>>> Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote: > > > > >> I object to killing off the X-forked GLU package at this point for that reason > > >> and others. > > > > 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). > > Assuming 2) is solved, are there other reasons we can't disable it > cleanly? I'm honestly curious. I don't know of any. It's enough of a problem. Until 2) is resolved I believe we should continue to ship GLU library packages. > > 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. > > Does this require more changes than build-depending on libglu-dev (and > possibly some config/cf/ fiddling)? Not as far as I know, but these are not charted waters, and Imake can be perverse. I think we just need someone to establish a branch, roll up his sleeves, and get to work. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | Music is the brandy of the damned. branden@debian.org | -- George Bernard Shaw http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgp7gn_36qCwo.pgp
Description: PGP signature