Re: xlibmesa naming and relationships
On Son, 2003-02-02 at 16:45, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Michel Dänzer <daenzer@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Shouldn't be a problem because nothing outside of the xfree86 source
> > package should depend on the xlibmesa packages directly (or deal with
> > it)?
>
> You just have to convince apt that replacing the then dissapeared foo3
> by foo1 just because the later also provides libgl1. You have to
> resort to some trick to convince it to do the upgrade.
Yes, that would need to be done once when moving to a sane name, whereas
it needs to be done every time the number after xlibmesa is bumped,
right?
> > My point is that the semantics of the libgl1 virtual package have
> > changed from 'libGL.so.1 and libGLU.so.1' to 'libGL.so.1 only', which
> > breaks packages that depend on libgl1 only but need libGLU. Did you
> > consider this, and what were your plans to handle it?
>
> Oh, that. I thought that the mail I wrote a couple of days ago ended
> up in -x, too.
Didn't seem to get it.
> Basically the package providing libgl1 will depend on libglu1 for a
> while to aid with upgrades. When packages are recompiled, they get a
> dependency on libglu1 if they use it. Once most packages are
> recompiled (for whatever reason), we file bugs on the rest.
Okay. I still think introducing a new virtual package and maybe dummy
libgl1 packages depending on that and libglu1 would have been better,
but I guess this mostly works.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast
Reply to: