On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 03:22:47PM -0800, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> James> Mesa aims to emulate OpenGL 1.2. Since the API isn't
> James> supposed to have changed, I don't like the idea of changing
> James> the package name. If the handling of NURBS has changed
> James> which is correct, the old version or the new one? They
> James> can't both be right.
>
> The new one is wrong. I have found NURBS code from both me and
> other folks that works under Mesa 3.0, Solaris OpenGL, and IRIX
> OpenGL, but causes segfaults *INTERNAL* to Mesa 3.1.
>
> It's 3.1's fault, just buggy NURBS code.
>
> James> Until I have some hard facts, I'm not changing anything. As
> James> it is, it is unclear whether mesa 3.1 will make it into the
> James> next release.
>
> Well, that's probably a good thing. I'd suggest 3.0 stay until the
> next release.
Yeah, well um if Mesa 3.1 doesn't get into the archive with Glide support,
I'm uploading it myself. I've had working glquake for literally months,
since early September but I couldn't package it because I couldn't meet
its depends.
Now Quake is free software (GPL'd in fact) and I will be greatly upset if
people can't even install it just because one feature you use in Mesa
happens to be broken in the current release.
I'm sorry but not letting Mesa 3.1 get into potato now REALLY steps on my
toes and I will be very unhappy if my free quake packages get pulled for
unresolvable dependencies.
> James> Dependencies were already messed up. All packages should be
> James> linked using -lGL. All the packages providing support for
> James> opengl will provide lib{GL,GLU}.
>
> You do realize that this breaks xscreensaver-gl, xlockmore-gl, and
> *ANY* other program that's linked with -lMesaGL? They'll just silently
> no longer work when the user installs the new mesag3 package, as
> libMesaGL will disappear from under them.
>
> This is probably an issue for woody. I agree that we do need to
> eventually move to Mesa 3.1, but not so close to release. It'd require
> rebuilding of all the packages linked with -lMesaGL, which are:
I'll rebuild them myself if it matters. And it wouldn't be that hard to
change the name of the mesa packages so they no longer conflict. It makes
sense to call the current packages mesag31 anyway.
> cthugha, vis5d, giram-mesa, vrwave, xlockmore-gl, plib1, geomview,
> v-bin, xplanet, libgtkada1, ssystem, grmonitor, gltt-bin, vreng, pose,
> clanlib0-display-glx, wmanager, xmame-gl, blender, xscreensaver-gl,
> yacas, bzflag, space-orbit, pdl, xmms, htmldoc, freewrl, wine,
> libfox0.99, dx, terraform, libgtkgl0, gem, moonlight, glbiff.
>
> This is a HUGE number of packages to break so close to release!
> Please, please, reconsider..
And to hell with my packages? That's very polite of you.
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian Linux developer
http://tank.debian.net GnuPG key pub 1024D/DCF9DAB3 sub 2048g/3F9C2A43
http://www.debian.org 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
<james> any gnome freaks around?
<Knghtbrd> not me, I'm just a freak
Attachment:
pgpYt9M617cnM.pgp
Description: PGP signature