--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 05:01, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Look, it's really simple.
Agreed.
> 11) If libutahglx1 stops Providing libgl1 and xlibmesa3-gl C/Rs
> only with libgl1, the package system will let a user attempt to
> install them both simultaneously, which will fail because they both
> attempt to claim ownership of the same file on the system
> (/usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1).
> 12) If libutahglx-dev stops Providing libgl-dev and xlibmesa3-gl-dev
> C/Rs only with libgl-dev, the package system will let a user attempt
> to install them both simultaneously, which will fail because they
> both attempt to claim ownership of the same file on the system
> (/usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so).
> 13) Therefore, having xlibmesa3-gl C/R libgl1 *and* libutahglx1 and
> xlibmesa3-gl-dev C/R libgl-dev *and* libutahglx-dev will prevent
> problems in the event the hypotheticals in 11) and 12) come to pass.
>
> What part of the above is incorrect?
As I said before: If the utah-glx packages stop providing the virtual
packages, they must either move the conflicting files or C/R the virtual
packages. There is no realistic scenario where the relations on the
virtual packages aren't sufficient.
> What does libGLU have to do with anything?
#188737, which the rest of revision 580 works around.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer
Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
--- End Message ---