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. 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, but that assessment is neither an overriding nor even a major concern for me. There is simply more important work to be doing on XFree86 packaging at present. If XFree86's libGLU were suddenly to make a nuisance of itself, for instance, by causing build failures or by having nasty bugs, then its elimination might move higher on my priority list. But for now it is no more than a wart, and the XFree86 packages presently have more important warts. > > 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. Your knowledge and experience are valuable to me; I wish you'd lay off this particular hobby horse for a while. -- G. Branden Robinson | Human beings rarely imagine a god Debian GNU/Linux | that behaves any better than a branden@debian.org | spoiled child. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
Attachment:
pgptEqLBvPwI3.pgp
Description: PGP signature