On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 03:33:07PM +0100, Michel D?nzer scrawled: > On Sam, 2003-02-08 at 01:17, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:04:18AM +0100, Michel D?nzer scrawled: > > > Duh, gcc obviously needs _its own_ version in the package name. I was > > > talking about xserver3.2-xfree86 (built with gcc 3.2), xlibs2.3.1 (built > > > against glibc 2.3.1), ... because those version numbers are about as > > > relevant to those packages as the Mesa version number is to xlibmesa. > > > > I agree entirely with Branden: if the changes are irrelevant, why does > > upstream keep bumping the *major* revision number? > > I suspect Marcelo could explain this far better than I can, but I'm not > sure he's reading this, so I'll try once again: > > The Mesa version number reflects the progress of the Mesa project. The > purpose of the Mesa project (and the xlibmesa packages) is to provide an > implementation of the OpenGL specification. Neither the API nor the ABI > of the libGL provided by Mesa has changed since Mesa version 3.x at > least.
Right, however giving xlibmesa a version number that only relates to XFree86, and not to Mesa at all, would be pretty misleading, because they'd see xlibmesa-gl, with a version of 4.2.1-5, and say "Oh, that must be Mesa version 4!". Bzzt. > PS: Will you please fix the xlibmesa4-drm-src package at least? As I've > told you before, the name is broken because the DRM has nothing to do > with Mesa, and DRI stands for Direct Rendering _Infrastructure_. How did DRI ever come into this? I'll rename it to something less broken, I agree, but I don't see how the acronym for DRI comes into this. -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne
msg05762/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
