On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: > On Don, 2003-02-06 at 16:28, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I'm not dodging it at all. xlibmesa3 is called xlibmesa3 because: > > > > 1) it's XFree86's version of the Mesa libraries (hence the "x"); > > 2) it's the Mesa library (hence the "libmesa"); and > > Noone is arguing that. > > > 3) it's version 3.x of the Mesa library (hence the "3"). > > You dodged my vital question again: > > 'How is the major Mesa version number relevant for the xlibmesa package > name?' How is a major version number relevant for anything? For example, how is it relevant for XFree86? > If someone could at least provide a single reason... Well, now the onus is on you. Convince me that verison numbers are categorically meaningless and communicate nothing of worth, ever. > > > > > Well, I am trying to get work done, with packages that have a > > > > > relationship to those in question, and I think it's unnecessarily > > > > > hard, for no good reason. > > > > > > > > What's hard about it? > > > > > > It breaks every time the name changes. > > > > What does it break? > > Something that provides xlibmesa3-gl, for example. Nothing, absolutely nothing, should be doing that. What would be the point? Marcelo and I have agreed upon a pure virtual package name "libgl1" and no one has explained why it's preferable to have a mixed virtual package name instead of a pure one. -- G. Branden Robinson | There is no housing shortage in Debian GNU/Linux | Lincoln today -- just a rumor that branden@debian.org | is put about by people who have http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | nowhere to live. -- G. L. Murfin
Attachment:
pgpoAMARFJv8E.pgp
Description: PGP signature