Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 18:44, Branden Robinson wrote: > 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. Even this could have been saved had this discussion taken place when libglu1 was split off libgl1. > 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, [...] Glad we agree on that. > > > 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. Geez, GLw obviously isn't as big a deal as GLU, and it would have to be split off libgl-dev first. > Your knowledge and experience are valuable to me; I wish you'd lay off > this particular hobby horse for a while. Your knowledge and experience are also valuable to me; I wish you'd lay off your rhetoric and confrontation for a while. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 18:38, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources > > > > > was > > > > > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed. > > > > > > > > Not too bad, methinks. > > > > > > I don't like it. Are these things really XFree86 X xserver specific, or > > > just DRI-specific? I think the latter. > > > > The DRM is maintained by the DRI project, but this is the copy shipped > > in the 4.3 release of XFree86. > > Is anyone else shipping DRM module sources (apart from kernel package > maintainers)? I am, from several branches of the DRI tree. > > [...] I pointed out the transition issue. The question is whether > > transitions matter in sid or only between stable releases, where > > there will be one after woody anyway. > > I want people to be able to smoothly upgrade from: > 1) woody > 2) the previous unstable version of XFree86 > 3) the version of XFree86 in testing at the time this goes into unstable Sounds reasonable, I'll keep that in mind. > I have a few concerns: > * package names need to be clear and communicative > * package names should be chosen such that they don't have to be changed > again in the near future Guess why I brought up all the naming mumbo jumbo? :) > * libGLU should not be dropped from the XFree86 packages until this > action can be handled gracefully I never suggested otherwise. > > > Or maybe you'd rather I added "-xfree86" to the end of every shared > > > library package name... > > > > I wouldn't, why should I, but just libgl1 doesn't work for the libGL > > package unfortunately. > > Of course not. It's a virtual package (and, I guess, a pure virtual > one, which is even better). My point exactly. > That the most obvious choice of a package name is unavailable does not > mean that care should not be exercised in choosing a different one. > Your armchair proposals followed by Daniel's rapid adoption of them > without consulting me, even though he said he'd leave the issue "in my > court", does not strike me as a process exhibiting care. Err, I'm a bit lost here, I don't understand what this is supposed to be all about. I provided a couple of proposals for discussion, that's all. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 18:44, Branden Robinson wrote: > 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. Even this could have been saved had this discussion taken place when libglu1 was split off libgl1. > 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, [...] Glad we agree on that. > > > 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. Geez, GLw obviously isn't as big a deal as GLU, and it would have to be split off libgl-dev first. > Your knowledge and experience are valuable to me; I wish you'd lay off > this particular hobby horse for a while. Your knowledge and experience are also valuable to me; I wish you'd lay off your rhetoric and confrontation for a while. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 18:38, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was > > > > > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed. > > > > > > > > Not too bad, methinks. > > > > > > I don't like it. Are these things really XFree86 X xserver specific, or > > > just DRI-specific? I think the latter. > > > > The DRM is maintained by the DRI project, but this is the copy shipped > > in the 4.3 release of XFree86. > > Is anyone else shipping DRM module sources (apart from kernel package > maintainers)? I am, from several branches of the DRI tree. > > [...] I pointed out the transition issue. The question is whether > > transitions matter in sid or only between stable releases, where > > there will be one after woody anyway. > > I want people to be able to smoothly upgrade from: > 1) woody > 2) the previous unstable version of XFree86 > 3) the version of XFree86 in testing at the time this goes into unstable Sounds reasonable, I'll keep that in mind. > I have a few concerns: > * package names need to be clear and communicative > * package names should be chosen such that they don't have to be changed > again in the near future Guess why I brought up all the naming mumbo jumbo? :) > * libGLU should not be dropped from the XFree86 packages until this > action can be handled gracefully I never suggested otherwise. > > > Or maybe you'd rather I added "-xfree86" to the end of every shared > > > library package name... > > > > I wouldn't, why should I, but just libgl1 doesn't work for the libGL > > package unfortunately. > > Of course not. It's a virtual package (and, I guess, a pure virtual > one, which is even better). My point exactly. > That the most obvious choice of a package name is unavailable does not > mean that care should not be exercised in choosing a different one. > Your armchair proposals followed by Daniel's rapid adoption of them > without consulting me, even though he said he'd leave the issue "in my > court", does not strike me as a process exhibiting care. Err, I'm a bit lost here, I don't understand what this is supposed to be all about. I provided a couple of proposals for discussion, that's all. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | spoiled child. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgpdiwsuFLVoU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was > > > > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed. > > > > > > Not too bad, methinks. > > > > I don't like it. Are these things really XFree86 X xserver specific, or > > just DRI-specific? I think the latter. > > The DRM is maintained by the DRI project, but this is the copy shipped > in the 4.3 release of XFree86. Is anyone else shipping DRM module sources (apart from kernel package maintainers)? > Easy, there. I didn't prod him into anything, and I pointed out the > transition issue. The question is whether transitions matter in sid or > only between stable releases, where there will be one after woody > anyway. I want people to be able to smoothly upgrade from: 1) woody 2) the previous unstable version of XFree86 3) the version of XFree86 in testing at the time this goes into unstable > I have the impression that we're perfectly calm. You on the other hand > are acting like a boy who's afraid we're going to steal his candy. If you don't understand my objection to the disruptiveness of the commit in question, then I guess you'll just have to stick with that unsophisticated analysis. > I for one am looking forward to your technical arguments to this > discussion. I have a few concerns: * package names need to be clear and communicative * package names should be chosen such that they don't have to be changed again in the near future * libGLU should not be dropped from the XFree86 packages until this action can be handled gracefully (same goes for any other library with an external source that XFree86 elects to bundle) > > Or maybe you'd rather I added "-xfree86" to the end of every shared > > library package name... > > I wouldn't, why should I, but just libgl1 doesn't work for the libGL > package unfortunately. Of course not. It's a virtual package (and, I guess, a pure virtual one, which is even better). That the most obvious choice of a package name is unavailable does not mean that care should not be exercised in choosing a different one. Your armchair proposals followed by Daniel's rapid adoption of them without consulting me, even though he said he'd leave the issue "in my court", does not strike me as a process exhibiting care. -- G. Branden Robinson|To Republicans, limited government Debian GNU/Linux |means not assisting people they [EMAIL PROTECTED] |would sooner see shoveled into mass http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |graves. -- Kenneth R. Kahn pgpLcshqs9yeP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:07:07PM +0100, Sean Neakums wrote: > Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote: > >> I wish you'd both calm down a little bit about this issue. > > > > I have the impression that we're perfectly calm. > > I feel that Branden's use of "calm" here is in the sense that the > changes have been committed rather more quickly than the depth of > discussion to date warrants. Yes, that is what I meant, thank you. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | // // // / / [EMAIL PROTECTED] | EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpIgltNMwUyy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | spoiled child. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was > > > > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed. > > > > > > Not too bad, methinks. > > > > I don't like it. Are these things really XFree86 X xserver specific, or > > just DRI-specific? I think the latter. > > The DRM is maintained by the DRI project, but this is the copy shipped > in the 4.3 release of XFree86. Is anyone else shipping DRM module sources (apart from kernel package maintainers)? > Easy, there. I didn't prod him into anything, and I pointed out the > transition issue. The question is whether transitions matter in sid or > only between stable releases, where there will be one after woody > anyway. I want people to be able to smoothly upgrade from: 1) woody 2) the previous unstable version of XFree86 3) the version of XFree86 in testing at the time this goes into unstable > I have the impression that we're perfectly calm. You on the other hand > are acting like a boy who's afraid we're going to steal his candy. If you don't understand my objection to the disruptiveness of the commit in question, then I guess you'll just have to stick with that unsophisticated analysis. > I for one am looking forward to your technical arguments to this > discussion. I have a few concerns: * package names need to be clear and communicative * package names should be chosen such that they don't have to be changed again in the near future * libGLU should not be dropped from the XFree86 packages until this action can be handled gracefully (same goes for any other library with an external source that XFree86 elects to bundle) > > Or maybe you'd rather I added "-xfree86" to the end of every shared > > library package name... > > I wouldn't, why should I, but just libgl1 doesn't work for the libGL > package unfortunately. Of course not. It's a virtual package (and, I guess, a pure virtual one, which is even better). That the most obvious choice of a package name is unavailable does not mean that care should not be exercised in choosing a different one. Your armchair proposals followed by Daniel's rapid adoption of them without consulting me, even though he said he'd leave the issue "in my court", does not strike me as a process exhibiting care. -- G. Branden Robinson|To Republicans, limited government Debian GNU/Linux |means not assisting people they [EMAIL PROTECTED] |would sooner see shoveled into mass http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |graves. -- Kenneth R. Kahn pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:07:07PM +0100, Sean Neakums wrote: > Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote: > >> I wish you'd both calm down a little bit about this issue. > > > > I have the impression that we're perfectly calm. > > I feel that Branden's use of "calm" here is in the sense that the > changes have been committed rather more quickly than the depth of > discussion to date warrants. Yes, that is what I meant, thank you. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | // // // / / [EMAIL PROTECTED] | EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote: >> I wish you'd both calm down a little bit about this issue. > > I have the impression that we're perfectly calm. I feel that Branden's use of "calm" here is in the sense that the changes have been committed rather more quickly than the depth of discussion to date warrants.
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was > > > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed. > > > > Not too bad, methinks. > > I don't like it. Are these things really XFree86 X xserver specific, or > just DRI-specific? I think the latter. The DRM is maintained by the DRI project, but this is the copy shipped in the 4.3 release of XFree86. > > > If so, why not xfree86-libgl1? > > > > I like libgl1-xfree86 better because the emphasis is on libgl1. > > Well, I don't. If the XFree86-forked libgl1 works with DRI, why don't > we call it libgl1-dri? Not a bad idea either. > > OTOH xlibmesa-gl(1) have the advantage that xlibmesa-gl-dev can stay the > > same, allowing for a smoother transition. > > Smooth transitions are important, a virtue Daniel seems eager to > discard, at your prodding. Easy, there. I didn't prod him into anything, and I pointed out the transition issue. The question is whether transitions matter in sid or only between stable releases, where there will be one after woody anyway. > I wish you'd both calm down a little bit about this issue. I have the impression that we're perfectly calm. You on the other hand are acting like a boy who's afraid we're going to steal his candy. No worries, you can keep it. I for one am looking forward to your technical arguments to this discussion. > > Also, is there a naming scheme yet for the other libraries to be split > > out of xlibs, which might be applicable here? > > Yeah. The scheme is the same as practically ever other shared library in > Debian. Take the SONAME, convert all capitals to lowercase, and remove > '.so.'. This is perfectly clear except for library names that end in > digits. So, libX11.so.6 will become libx11-6. > > Or maybe you'd rather I added "-xfree86" to the end of every shared > library package name... I wouldn't, why should I, but just libgl1 doesn't work for the libGL package unfortunately. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:11, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > Why isn't Mesa 5's libGL built as well? > > > > *sigh* How many times will we have to walk this through yet? > > > > The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular, > > the former can't use direct rendering, while the latter can't use plain > > X11 rendering. > > > > The libGLUs OTOH are both taken from the SGI sample implementation. _If_ > > there are any significant changes to libGLU, they will much more likely > > appear in Mesa first. Maintaining xlibmesa-glu as well is a waste of > > effort. > > Why are you so gung-ho about killing libGLU? In order to stop the duplication of effort. > What about libGLw? I think the same reasoning applies to it, thanks for pointing that out. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was > > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed. > > Not too bad, methinks. I don't like it. Are these things really XFree86 X xserver specific, or just DRI-specific? I think the latter. > > If so, why not xfree86-libgl1? > > I like libgl1-xfree86 better because the emphasis is on libgl1. Well, I don't. If the XFree86-forked libgl1 works with DRI, why don't we call it libgl1-dri? > OTOH xlibmesa-gl(1) have the advantage that xlibmesa-gl-dev can stay the > same, allowing for a smoother transition. Smooth transitions are important, a virtue Daniel seems eager to discard, at your prodding. I wish you'd both calm down a little bit about this issue. > Also, is there a naming scheme yet for the other libraries to be split > out of xlibs, which might be applicable here? Yeah. The scheme is the same as practically ever other shared library in Debian. Take the SONAME, convert all capitals to lowercase, and remove '.so.'. This is perfectly clear except for library names that end in digits. So, libX11.so.6 will become libx11-6. Or maybe you'd rather I added "-xfree86" to the end of every shared library package name... -- G. Branden Robinson| Good judgement comes from Debian GNU/Linux | experience; experience comes from [EMAIL PROTECTED] | bad judgement. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks pgpTWf7kM6ukK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > Why isn't Mesa 5's libGL built as well? > > *sigh* How many times will we have to walk this through yet? > > The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular, > the former can't use direct rendering, while the latter can't use plain > X11 rendering. > > The libGLUs OTOH are both taken from the SGI sample implementation. _If_ > there are any significant changes to libGLU, they will much more likely > appear in Mesa first. Maintaining xlibmesa-glu as well is a waste of > effort. Why are you so gung-ho about killing libGLU? What about libGLw? -- G. Branden Robinson| The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I [EMAIL PROTECTED] | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgps0c2MGOdCi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote: >> I wish you'd both calm down a little bit about this issue. > > I have the impression that we're perfectly calm. I feel that Branden's use of "calm" here is in the sense that the changes have been committed rather more quickly than the depth of discussion to date warrants. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:17, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was > > > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed. > > > > Not too bad, methinks. > > I don't like it. Are these things really XFree86 X xserver specific, or > just DRI-specific? I think the latter. The DRM is maintained by the DRI project, but this is the copy shipped in the 4.3 release of XFree86. > > > If so, why not xfree86-libgl1? > > > > I like libgl1-xfree86 better because the emphasis is on libgl1. > > Well, I don't. If the XFree86-forked libgl1 works with DRI, why don't > we call it libgl1-dri? Not a bad idea either. > > OTOH xlibmesa-gl(1) have the advantage that xlibmesa-gl-dev can stay the > > same, allowing for a smoother transition. > > Smooth transitions are important, a virtue Daniel seems eager to > discard, at your prodding. Easy, there. I didn't prod him into anything, and I pointed out the transition issue. The question is whether transitions matter in sid or only between stable releases, where there will be one after woody anyway. > I wish you'd both calm down a little bit about this issue. I have the impression that we're perfectly calm. You on the other hand are acting like a boy who's afraid we're going to steal his candy. No worries, you can keep it. I for one am looking forward to your technical arguments to this discussion. > > Also, is there a naming scheme yet for the other libraries to be split > > out of xlibs, which might be applicable here? > > Yeah. The scheme is the same as practically ever other shared library in > Debian. Take the SONAME, convert all capitals to lowercase, and remove > '.so.'. This is perfectly clear except for library names that end in > digits. So, libX11.so.6 will become libx11-6. > > Or maybe you'd rather I added "-xfree86" to the end of every shared > library package name... I wouldn't, why should I, but just libgl1 doesn't work for the libGL package unfortunately. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 20:11, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > Why isn't Mesa 5's libGL built as well? > > > > *sigh* How many times will we have to walk this through yet? > > > > The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular, > > the former can't use direct rendering, while the latter can't use plain > > X11 rendering. > > > > The libGLUs OTOH are both taken from the SGI sample implementation. _If_ > > there are any significant changes to libGLU, they will much more likely > > appear in Mesa first. Maintaining xlibmesa-glu as well is a waste of > > effort. > > Why are you so gung-ho about killing libGLU? In order to stop the duplication of effort. > What about libGLw? I think the same reasoning applies to it, thanks for pointing that out. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was > > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed. > > Not too bad, methinks. I don't like it. Are these things really XFree86 X xserver specific, or just DRI-specific? I think the latter. > > If so, why not xfree86-libgl1? > > I like libgl1-xfree86 better because the emphasis is on libgl1. Well, I don't. If the XFree86-forked libgl1 works with DRI, why don't we call it libgl1-dri? > OTOH xlibmesa-gl(1) have the advantage that xlibmesa-gl-dev can stay the > same, allowing for a smoother transition. Smooth transitions are important, a virtue Daniel seems eager to discard, at your prodding. I wish you'd both calm down a little bit about this issue. > Also, is there a naming scheme yet for the other libraries to be split > out of xlibs, which might be applicable here? Yeah. The scheme is the same as practically ever other shared library in Debian. Take the SONAME, convert all capitals to lowercase, and remove '.so.'. This is perfectly clear except for library names that end in digits. So, libX11.so.6 will become libx11-6. Or maybe you'd rather I added "-xfree86" to the end of every shared library package name... -- G. Branden Robinson| Good judgement comes from Debian GNU/Linux | experience; experience comes from [EMAIL PROTECTED] | bad judgement. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > Why isn't Mesa 5's libGL built as well? > > *sigh* How many times will we have to walk this through yet? > > The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular, > the former can't use direct rendering, while the latter can't use plain > X11 rendering. > > The libGLUs OTOH are both taken from the SGI sample implementation. _If_ > there are any significant changes to libGLU, they will much more likely > appear in Mesa first. Maintaining xlibmesa-glu as well is a waste of > effort. Why are you so gung-ho about killing libGLU? What about libGLw? -- G. Branden Robinson| The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I [EMAIL PROTECTED] | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:12:42PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 14:04, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:35, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > > How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and friends? > > > > > > No, as has been discussed here, it's still mesag3 for hysterical > > > reasons. We have to set a good example. :) > > > > "Historical reasons", or "hysterical raisins". :) > > > > > > If so, why not xfree86-libgl1? > > > > > > I like libgl1-xfree86 better because the emphasis is on libgl1. > > > > Fair enough, but then again, why is mesa-libglu1, called mesa-libglu1? > > It isn't, it's called libglu1-mesa. I think I need to go to bed. -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne pgpQAfhKd4NUz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 14:04, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:35, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and friends? > > > > No, as has been discussed here, it's still mesag3 for hysterical > > reasons. We have to set a good example. :) > > "Historical reasons", or "hysterical raisins". :) > > > > If so, why not xfree86-libgl1? > > > > I like libgl1-xfree86 better because the emphasis is on libgl1. > > Fair enough, but then again, why is mesa-libglu1, called mesa-libglu1? It isn't, it's called libglu1-mesa. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:35, Daniel Stone wrote: > > How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and friends? > > No, as has been discussed here, it's still mesag3 for hysterical > reasons. We have to set a good example. :) "Historical reasons", or "hysterical raisins". :) > > If so, why not xfree86-libgl1? > > I like libgl1-xfree86 better because the emphasis is on libgl1. Fair enough, but then again, why is mesa-libglu1, called mesa-libglu1? > OTOH xlibmesa-gl(1) have the advantage that xlibmesa-gl-dev can stay the > same, allowing for a smoother transition. > > Also, is there a naming scheme yet for the other libraries to be split > out of xlibs, which might be applicable here? The standard way - libfooN. Daniel, enamoured with Dasher -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne pgpFqsaz8wrbp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:35, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:27:33PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 12:54, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > > Any ideas on what we should call xlibmesa-drm-src and xlibmesa-gl? > > > > Time for a little brainstorming session? :) > > > > drm-xfree86-module-src ? (I don't really like drm-trunk-module-src etc. > > either though, so if anybody has a better idea... :) > > > > I can live with xlibmesa-gl, though I like xlibmesa-gl1 better. Another > > random idea would be libgl1-xfree86 . > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed. Not too bad, methinks. > How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and friends? No, as has been discussed here, it's still mesag3 for hysterical reasons. We have to set a good example. :) > If so, why not xfree86-libgl1? I like libgl1-xfree86 better because the emphasis is on libgl1. OTOH xlibmesa-gl(1) have the advantage that xlibmesa-gl-dev can stay the same, allowing for a smoother transition. Also, is there a naming scheme yet for the other libraries to be split out of xlibs, which might be applicable here? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:27:33PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 12:54, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > > > > > The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular, > > > the former can't use direct rendering, while the latter can't use plain > > > X11 rendering. > > > > > > The libGLUs OTOH are both taken from the SGI sample implementation. _If_ > > > there are any significant changes to libGLU, they will much more likely > > > appear in Mesa first. Maintaining xlibmesa-glu as well is a waste of > > > effort. > > > > OK, I can see this, and will add the re-org to the pre1v2 list. > > Thank you. I can look into doing it myself if that would be helpful, but > my time is tight and I might have to get familiar with subversion first. Nah, it's cool. It's work we can all do, and it's not terrifically important. > > Any ideas on what we should call xlibmesa-drm-src and xlibmesa-gl? > > Time for a little brainstorming session? :) > > drm-xfree86-module-src ? (I don't really like drm-trunk-module-src etc. > either though, so if anybody has a better idea... :) > > I can live with xlibmesa-gl, though I like xlibmesa-gl1 better. Another > random idea would be libgl1-xfree86 . Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed. drm-xfree86-module-src is far too long, IMO. How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and friends? If so, why not xfree86-libgl1? -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne pgpUYQNSmT5Z9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 12:54, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > > > The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular, > > the former can't use direct rendering, while the latter can't use plain > > X11 rendering. > > > > The libGLUs OTOH are both taken from the SGI sample implementation. _If_ > > there are any significant changes to libGLU, they will much more likely > > appear in Mesa first. Maintaining xlibmesa-glu as well is a waste of > > effort. > > OK, I can see this, and will add the re-org to the pre1v2 list. Thank you. I can look into doing it myself if that would be helpful, but my time is tight and I might have to get familiar with subversion first. > Any ideas on what we should call xlibmesa-drm-src and xlibmesa-gl? Time for a little brainstorming session? :) drm-xfree86-module-src ? (I don't really like drm-trunk-module-src etc. either though, so if anybody has a better idea... :) I can live with xlibmesa-gl, though I like xlibmesa-gl1 better. Another random idea would be libgl1-xfree86 . -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 04:15, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:13:58AM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 03:55, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > > * drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
> > > > * fix xlibmesa-drm-src name; the DRM isn't a library, and it has
> > > > nothing whatsoever to do with Mesa. Something like
> > > > drm-module-src maybe?
> > > > * xlibmesa-gl{,-dev,-dbg} is already better than xlibmesa4-gl*,
> > > > thanks. Does anything speak against xlibmesa-gl{1,-dev,-dbg} (1
> > > > being the OpenGL API/ABI version) though, which would be
> > > > consistent with my current dri-trunk packages?
> > >
> > > Err, why would we have xlibmesa-gl1 and libglu1-mesa? That's woefully
> > > inconsistent - I thought the whole point of this was consistency, no?
> >
> > apt-cache showsrc libglu1-mesa
> >
> > xlibmesa-glu is libglu1-mesa in disguise.
>
> Oh, so you're proposing to stop building GLU, because we already have
> Mesa/s GLU?
Bingo.
> Why isn't Mesa 5's libGL built as well?
*sigh* How many times will we have to walk this through yet?
The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular,
the former can't use direct rendering, while the latter can't use plain
X11 rendering.
The libGLUs OTOH are both taken from the SGI sample implementation. _If_
there are any significant changes to libGLU, they will much more likely
appear in Mesa first. Maintaining xlibmesa-glu as well is a waste of
effort.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer
Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:12:42PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 14:04, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:35, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > > How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and friends? > > > > > > No, as has been discussed here, it's still mesag3 for hysterical > > > reasons. We have to set a good example. :) > > > > "Historical reasons", or "hysterical raisins". :) > > > > > > If so, why not xfree86-libgl1? > > > > > > I like libgl1-xfree86 better because the emphasis is on libgl1. > > > > Fair enough, but then again, why is mesa-libglu1, called mesa-libglu1? > > It isn't, it's called libglu1-mesa. I think I need to go to bed. -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 14:04, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:35, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and friends? > > > > No, as has been discussed here, it's still mesag3 for hysterical > > reasons. We have to set a good example. :) > > "Historical reasons", or "hysterical raisins". :) > > > > If so, why not xfree86-libgl1? > > > > I like libgl1-xfree86 better because the emphasis is on libgl1. > > Fair enough, but then again, why is mesa-libglu1, called mesa-libglu1? It isn't, it's called libglu1-mesa. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:35, Daniel Stone wrote: > > How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and friends? > > No, as has been discussed here, it's still mesag3 for hysterical > reasons. We have to set a good example. :) "Historical reasons", or "hysterical raisins". :) > > If so, why not xfree86-libgl1? > > I like libgl1-xfree86 better because the emphasis is on libgl1. Fair enough, but then again, why is mesa-libglu1, called mesa-libglu1? > OTOH xlibmesa-gl(1) have the advantage that xlibmesa-gl-dev can stay the > same, allowing for a smoother transition. > > Also, is there a naming scheme yet for the other libraries to be split > out of xlibs, which might be applicable here? The standard way - libfooN. Daniel, enamoured with Dasher -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:35, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:27:33PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 12:54, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > > Any ideas on what we should call xlibmesa-drm-src and xlibmesa-gl? > > > > Time for a little brainstorming session? :) > > > > drm-xfree86-module-src ? (I don't really like drm-trunk-module-src etc. > > either though, so if anybody has a better idea... :) > > > > I can live with xlibmesa-gl, though I like xlibmesa-gl1 better. Another > > random idea would be libgl1-xfree86 . > > Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was > xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed. Not too bad, methinks. > How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and friends? No, as has been discussed here, it's still mesag3 for hysterical reasons. We have to set a good example. :) > If so, why not xfree86-libgl1? I like libgl1-xfree86 better because the emphasis is on libgl1. OTOH xlibmesa-gl(1) have the advantage that xlibmesa-gl-dev can stay the same, allowing for a smoother transition. Also, is there a naming scheme yet for the other libraries to be split out of xlibs, which might be applicable here? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:27:33PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 12:54, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > > > > > The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular, > > > the former can't use direct rendering, while the latter can't use plain > > > X11 rendering. > > > > > > The libGLUs OTOH are both taken from the SGI sample implementation. _If_ > > > there are any significant changes to libGLU, they will much more likely > > > appear in Mesa first. Maintaining xlibmesa-glu as well is a waste of > > > effort. > > > > OK, I can see this, and will add the re-org to the pre1v2 list. > > Thank you. I can look into doing it myself if that would be helpful, but > my time is tight and I might have to get familiar with subversion first. Nah, it's cool. It's work we can all do, and it's not terrifically important. > > Any ideas on what we should call xlibmesa-drm-src and xlibmesa-gl? > > Time for a little brainstorming session? :) > > drm-xfree86-module-src ? (I don't really like drm-trunk-module-src etc. > either though, so if anybody has a better idea... :) > > I can live with xlibmesa-gl, though I like xlibmesa-gl1 better. Another > random idea would be libgl1-xfree86 . Mmm, I'm liking libgl1-xfree86. My original name for the DRM sources was xfree86-drm-src, but that later got renamed. drm-xfree86-module-src is far too long, IMO. How are the other GL packages named - mesa-libgl1 and friends? If so, why not xfree86-libgl1? -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 12:54, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:47:05PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > > > The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular, > > the former can't use direct rendering, while the latter can't use plain > > X11 rendering. > > > > The libGLUs OTOH are both taken from the SGI sample implementation. _If_ > > there are any significant changes to libGLU, they will much more likely > > appear in Mesa first. Maintaining xlibmesa-glu as well is a waste of > > effort. > > OK, I can see this, and will add the re-org to the pre1v2 list. Thank you. I can look into doing it myself if that would be helpful, but my time is tight and I might have to get familiar with subversion first. > Any ideas on what we should call xlibmesa-drm-src and xlibmesa-gl? Time for a little brainstorming session? :) drm-xfree86-module-src ? (I don't really like drm-trunk-module-src etc. either though, so if anybody has a better idea... :) I can live with xlibmesa-gl, though I like xlibmesa-gl1 better. Another random idea would be libgl1-xfree86 . -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 04:15, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:13:58AM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 03:55, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > > * drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
> > > > * fix xlibmesa-drm-src name; the DRM isn't a library, and it has
> > > > nothing whatsoever to do with Mesa. Something like
> > > > drm-module-src maybe?
> > > > * xlibmesa-gl{,-dev,-dbg} is already better than xlibmesa4-gl*,
> > > > thanks. Does anything speak against xlibmesa-gl{1,-dev,-dbg} (1
> > > > being the OpenGL API/ABI version) though, which would be
> > > > consistent with my current dri-trunk packages?
> > >
> > > Err, why would we have xlibmesa-gl1 and libglu1-mesa? That's woefully
> > > inconsistent - I thought the whole point of this was consistency, no?
> >
> > apt-cache showsrc libglu1-mesa
> >
> > xlibmesa-glu is libglu1-mesa in disguise.
>
> Oh, so you're proposing to stop building GLU, because we already have
> Mesa/s GLU?
Bingo.
> Why isn't Mesa 5's libGL built as well?
*sigh* How many times will we have to walk this through yet?
The libGLs provided by Mesa and XFree86 aren't the same. In particular,
the former can't use direct rendering, while the latter can't use plain
X11 rendering.
The libGLUs OTOH are both taken from the SGI sample implementation. _If_
there are any significant changes to libGLU, they will much more likely
appear in Mesa first. Maintaining xlibmesa-glu as well is a waste of
effort.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer
Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:13:58AM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 03:55, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > * drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
> > > * fix xlibmesa-drm-src name; the DRM isn't a library, and it has
> > > nothing whatsoever to do with Mesa. Something like
> > > drm-module-src maybe?
> > > * xlibmesa-gl{,-dev,-dbg} is already better than xlibmesa4-gl*,
> > > thanks. Does anything speak against xlibmesa-gl{1,-dev,-dbg} (1
> > > being the OpenGL API/ABI version) though, which would be
> > > consistent with my current dri-trunk packages?
> >
> > Err, why would we have xlibmesa-gl1 and libglu1-mesa? That's woefully
> > inconsistent - I thought the whole point of this was consistency, no?
>
> apt-cache showsrc libglu1-mesa
>
> xlibmesa-glu is libglu1-mesa in disguise.
Oh, so you're proposing to stop building GLU, because we already have
Mesa/s GLU? Why isn't Mesa 5's libGL built as well?
I'm not seeing any consistency whatsoever here ...
--
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne
pgptallUIosmN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 03:55, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > * drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
> > * fix xlibmesa-drm-src name; the DRM isn't a library, and it has
> > nothing whatsoever to do with Mesa. Something like
> > drm-module-src maybe?
> > * xlibmesa-gl{,-dev,-dbg} is already better than xlibmesa4-gl*,
> > thanks. Does anything speak against xlibmesa-gl{1,-dev,-dbg} (1
> > being the OpenGL API/ABI version) though, which would be
> > consistent with my current dri-trunk packages?
>
> Err, why would we have xlibmesa-gl1 and libglu1-mesa? That's woefully
> inconsistent - I thought the whole point of this was consistency, no?
apt-cache showsrc libglu1-mesa
xlibmesa-glu is libglu1-mesa in disguise.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer
Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> * drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
> * fix xlibmesa-drm-src name; the DRM isn't a library, and it has
> nothing whatsoever to do with Mesa. Something like
> drm-module-src maybe?
> * xlibmesa-gl{,-dev,-dbg} is already better than xlibmesa4-gl*,
> thanks. Does anything speak against xlibmesa-gl{1,-dev,-dbg} (1
> being the OpenGL API/ABI version) though, which would be
> consistent with my current dri-trunk packages?
Err, why would we have xlibmesa-gl1 and libglu1-mesa? That's woefully
inconsistent - I thought the whole point of this was consistency, no?
--
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne
pgpfleTRQ6Xcs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:13:58AM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 03:55, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > * drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
> > > * fix xlibmesa-drm-src name; the DRM isn't a library, and it has
> > > nothing whatsoever to do with Mesa. Something like
> > > drm-module-src maybe?
> > > * xlibmesa-gl{,-dev,-dbg} is already better than xlibmesa4-gl*,
> > > thanks. Does anything speak against xlibmesa-gl{1,-dev,-dbg} (1
> > > being the OpenGL API/ABI version) though, which would be
> > > consistent with my current dri-trunk packages?
> >
> > Err, why would we have xlibmesa-gl1 and libglu1-mesa? That's woefully
> > inconsistent - I thought the whole point of this was consistency, no?
>
> apt-cache showsrc libglu1-mesa
>
> xlibmesa-glu is libglu1-mesa in disguise.
Oh, so you're proposing to stop building GLU, because we already have
Mesa/s GLU? Why isn't Mesa 5's libGL built as well?
I'm not seeing any consistency whatsoever here ...
--
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 03:55, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > * drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
> > * fix xlibmesa-drm-src name; the DRM isn't a library, and it has
> > nothing whatsoever to do with Mesa. Something like
> > drm-module-src maybe?
> > * xlibmesa-gl{,-dev,-dbg} is already better than xlibmesa4-gl*,
> > thanks. Does anything speak against xlibmesa-gl{1,-dev,-dbg} (1
> > being the OpenGL API/ABI version) though, which would be
> > consistent with my current dri-trunk packages?
>
> Err, why would we have xlibmesa-gl1 and libglu1-mesa? That's woefully
> inconsistent - I thought the whole point of this was consistency, no?
apt-cache showsrc libglu1-mesa
xlibmesa-glu is libglu1-mesa in disguise.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer
Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> * drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
> * fix xlibmesa-drm-src name; the DRM isn't a library, and it has
> nothing whatsoever to do with Mesa. Something like
> drm-module-src maybe?
> * xlibmesa-gl{,-dev,-dbg} is already better than xlibmesa4-gl*,
> thanks. Does anything speak against xlibmesa-gl{1,-dev,-dbg} (1
> being the OpenGL API/ABI version) though, which would be
> consistent with my current dri-trunk packages?
Err, why would we have xlibmesa-gl1 and libglu1-mesa? That's woefully
inconsistent - I thought the whole point of this was consistency, no?
--
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 06:22, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi all,
> The following is a list of the things *I* think still need to be done
> for 4.3.0-0pre1v1. It should not be considered an official XSF document,
> or anything of the sort. If anyone has any comments, please add them.
* drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
* fix xlibmesa-drm-src name; the DRM isn't a library, and it has
nothing whatsoever to do with Mesa. Something like
drm-module-src maybe?
* xlibmesa-gl{,-dev,-dbg} is already better than xlibmesa4-gl*,
thanks. Does anything speak against xlibmesa-gl{1,-dev,-dbg} (1
being the OpenGL API/ABI version) though, which would be
consistent with my current dri-trunk packages?
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer
Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 06:22, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi all,
> The following is a list of the things *I* think still need to be done
> for 4.3.0-0pre1v1. It should not be considered an official XSF document,
> or anything of the sort. If anyone has any comments, please add them.
* drop xlibmesa-glu* in favour of libglu1-mesa*
* fix xlibmesa-drm-src name; the DRM isn't a library, and it has
nothing whatsoever to do with Mesa. Something like
drm-module-src maybe?
* xlibmesa-gl{,-dev,-dbg} is already better than xlibmesa4-gl*,
thanks. Does anything speak against xlibmesa-gl{1,-dev,-dbg} (1
being the OpenGL API/ABI version) though, which would be
consistent with my current dri-trunk packages?
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer
Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read - UPDATED]
Ye olde updatee. On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 02:22:15PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > 4.3.0-0pre1: > * Build on at least 80% of current sid architectures (me). > * Iron out #190323, weak GL deps bug. > * Have dexconf make backups, etc (Branden: I'm happy to help with > this). * Must upgrade absolutely cleanly from 4.2.1-8, excluding xkb->xlibs-data [blah]. (me - should work, just check) > 4.3.0-0pre2: > * Merge Sven Luther's SDK stuff (me). > * Build on at least 90% of current sid architectures (me). * Import Savage driver from tarball. (me) * Import SiS driver from CVS. * Reap BTS for bugs with unapplied patches that should go in. > 4.3.0-0pre3: > * xlibs/xbase-clients splits (Branden?). > * Build on all current sid architectures (me). > > 4.3.0-0rc1: > * Bugfixes only from pre3. > > 4.3.0-1: > * Profit. Any more comments, anyone? -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> KDE: Konquering a desktop near you - http://www.kde.org pgpfSpXY8S36R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read - UPDATED]
Ye olde updatee. On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 02:22:15PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > 4.3.0-0pre1: > * Build on at least 80% of current sid architectures (me). > * Iron out #190323, weak GL deps bug. > * Have dexconf make backups, etc (Branden: I'm happy to help with > this). * Must upgrade absolutely cleanly from 4.2.1-8, excluding xkb->xlibs-data [blah]. (me - should work, just check) > 4.3.0-0pre2: > * Merge Sven Luther's SDK stuff (me). > * Build on at least 90% of current sid architectures (me). * Import Savage driver from tarball. (me) * Import SiS driver from CVS. * Reap BTS for bugs with unapplied patches that should go in. > 4.3.0-0pre3: > * xlibs/xbase-clients splits (Branden?). > * Build on all current sid architectures (me). > > 4.3.0-0rc1: > * Bugfixes only from pre3. > > 4.3.0-1: > * Profit. Any more comments, anyone? -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> KDE: Konquering a desktop near you - http://www.kde.org pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:10:31PM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote: > Current status: > xcursor is already installed into sid. So it is - thanks. My p.d.o search on "xcursor" turned up nothing. > build checks are done on i386/sparc/alpha. See p/d/STATUS for info on whether the various architectures *should* work or not. -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> KDE: Konquering a desktop near you - http://www.kde.org pgpNpJbEBL0gM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> The following is a list of the things *I* think still need to be done >> for 4.3.0-0pre1v1. It should not be considered an official XSF document, >> or anything of the sort. If anyone has any comments, please add them. >> 4.3.0-0pre1: >> * Get xcursor into sid, check separation is clean (Ishikawa?). Current status: xcursor is already installed into sid. build checks are done on i386/sparc/alpha. -- ISHIKAWA Mutsumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:10:31PM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote: > Current status: > xcursor is already installed into sid. So it is - thanks. My p.d.o search on "xcursor" turned up nothing. > build checks are done on i386/sparc/alpha. See p/d/STATUS for info on whether the various architectures *should* work or not. -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> KDE: Konquering a desktop near you - http://www.kde.org pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.3.0-0pre1v1 [XSF, please read]
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> The following is a list of the things *I* think still need to be done >> for 4.3.0-0pre1v1. It should not be considered an official XSF document, >> or anything of the sort. If anyone has any comments, please add them. >> 4.3.0-0pre1: >> * Get xcursor into sid, check separation is clean (Ishikawa?). Current status: xcursor is already installed into sid. build checks are done on i386/sparc/alpha. -- ISHIKAWA Mutsumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
