Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 18:44, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:26:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > Why are you so gung-ho about killing libGLU?
> >
> > In order to stop the duplication of effort.
>
> What effort? It's a lot more trouble to patch the XFree86 source tree
> to pretend libGLU isn't there than it is to just leave well enough
> alone.
>
> I have *never* heard of any problems caused on people's systems by the
> availability of two packages that provide the libGLU object files, and a
> quick inspection of the Debian BTS reveals that the xlibmesa*glu*
> packages do not impose a particularly heavy support burden.
Even this could have been saved had this discussion taken place when
libglu1 was split off libgl1.
> I share your esthetic assessment that it's suboptimal to have XFree86
> build and ship libGLU if it differs in no appreciable respect from the
> version provided by the Mesa source package, [...]
Glad we agree on that.
> > > What about libGLw?
> >
> > I think the same reasoning applies to it, thanks for pointing that out.
>
> The fact that you were henceforth unaware of it causes me to despair of
> the correlation between the attention you've actually paid to this
> matter and the stridency of your complaints about it.
Geez, GLw obviously isn't as big a deal as GLU, and it would have to be
split off libgl-dev first.
> Your knowledge and experience are valuable to me; I wish you'd lay off
> this particular hobby horse for a while.
Your knowledge and experience are also valuable to me; I wish you'd lay
off your rhetoric and confrontation for a while.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer
Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Reply to: