Re: XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
see below. On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Brian Paul wrote: Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 09:54:03AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: However, a consensus has formed of late among the XFree86 developers, in conjunction with Brian Paul (the mastermind of the Mesa project), that libGLU should be shipped, built and installed with the rest of Mesa as part of the XFree86 distribution. I've corresponded with Brian on this point, and he suggests that the 3 libraries, libGL, libGLU, and libOSMesa, be shipped in one package. I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. What is Debian's policy regarding OpenGL libraries provided by the hardware vendor (NVidia, for example)? Don't we get a packaging conflict here? No. Debian has a virtual package called "libgl1" which any package providing a compliant GL library can "Provide" in the package management sense. However, I'm concerned that not every one of these implementations that ships libGL will also ship libGLU and (especially) libOSMesa. Brian, do you still think it is a good idea to keep all 3 of these libraries together? But then how do you handle binary drivers like nvidia's? or someone writes a gl library for hardware x, he has to distribute everything instead of just his new libgl? I don't understand what the advantage is having one big package is over smaller, more flexible packages. Yes. And libGLW.a. What set of GL libraries can any reasonable GL implementation be expected to provide? Only that and no more needs to be handled with this mechanism. Someone else already mentioned the Linux/OpenGL standard base website. -Brian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What set of GL libraries can any reasonable GL implementation be expected to provide? Déjà vu... http://oss.sgi.com/projects/ogl-sample/ABI/, section 3. You might as well be interested in the OpenGL specification and related documents, but that goes far beyond the scope of your question. (http://www.opengl.org/Documentation/Specs.html) M. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 09:54:03AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: However, a consensus has formed of late among the XFree86 developers, in conjunction with Brian Paul (the mastermind of the Mesa project), that libGLU should be shipped, built and installed with the rest of Mesa as part of the XFree86 distribution. I've corresponded with Brian on this point, and he suggests that the 3 libraries, libGL, libGLU, and libOSMesa, be shipped in one package. I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. What is Debian's policy regarding OpenGL libraries provided by the hardware vendor (NVidia, for example)? Don't we get a packaging conflict here? No. Debian has a virtual package called "libgl1" which any package providing a compliant GL library can "Provide" in the package management sense. However, I'm concerned that not every one of these implementations that ships libGL will also ship libGLU and (especially) libOSMesa. Brian, do you still think it is a good idea to keep all 3 of these libraries together? Yes. And libGLW.a. What set of GL libraries can any reasonable GL implementation be expected to provide? Only that and no more needs to be handled with this mechanism. Someone else already mentioned the Linux/OpenGL standard base website. -Brian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 09:54:03AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: However, a consensus has formed of late among the XFree86 developers, in conjunction with Brian Paul (the mastermind of the Mesa project), that libGLU should be shipped, built and installed with the rest of Mesa as part of the XFree86 distribution. I've corresponded with Brian on this point, and he suggests that the 3 libraries, libGL, libGLU, and libOSMesa, be shipped in one package. I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. What is Debian's policy regarding OpenGL libraries provided by the hardware vendor (NVidia, for example)? Don't we get a packaging conflict here? No. Debian has a virtual package called libgl1 which any package providing a compliant GL library can Provide in the package management sense. However, I'm concerned that not every one of these implementations that ships libGL will also ship libGLU and (especially) libOSMesa. Brian, do you still think it is a good idea to keep all 3 of these libraries together? What set of GL libraries can any reasonable GL implementation be expected to provide? Only that and no more needs to be handled with this mechanism. -- G. Branden Robinson|When I die I want to go peacefully in Debian GNU/Linux |my sleep like my ol' Grand Dad...not [EMAIL PROTECTED] |screaming in terror like his passengers. http://deadbeast.net/~branden/ | pgpu6FS5fCHVz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What set of GL libraries can any reasonable GL implementation be expected to provide? Déjà vu... http://oss.sgi.com/projects/ogl-sample/ABI/, section 3. You might as well be interested in the OpenGL specification and related documents, but that goes far beyond the scope of your question. (http://www.opengl.org/Documentation/Specs.html) M.
Re: XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 09:54:03AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: However, a consensus has formed of late among the XFree86 developers, in conjunction with Brian Paul (the mastermind of the Mesa project), that libGLU should be shipped, built and installed with the rest of Mesa as part of the XFree86 distribution. I've corresponded with Brian on this point, and he suggests that the 3 libraries, libGL, libGLU, and libOSMesa, be shipped in one package. I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. What is Debian's policy regarding OpenGL libraries provided by the hardware vendor (NVidia, for example)? Don't we get a packaging conflict here? No. Debian has a virtual package called libgl1 which any package providing a compliant GL library can Provide in the package management sense. However, I'm concerned that not every one of these implementations that ships libGL will also ship libGLU and (especially) libOSMesa. Brian, do you still think it is a good idea to keep all 3 of these libraries together? Yes. And libGLW.a. What set of GL libraries can any reasonable GL implementation be expected to provide? Only that and no more needs to be handled with this mechanism. Someone else already mentioned the Linux/OpenGL standard base website. -Brian
Re: XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
Branden Robinson wrote: However, a consensus has formed of late among the XFree86 developers, in conjunction with Brian Paul (the mastermind of the Mesa project), that libGLU should be shipped, built and installed with the rest of Mesa as part of the XFree86 distribution. I've corresponded with Brian on this point, and he suggests that the 3 libraries, libGL, libGLU, and libOSMesa, be shipped in one package. I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. What is Debian's policy regarding OpenGL libraries provided by the hardware vendor (NVidia, for example)? Don't we get a packaging conflict here? Regards Harri -- Harald Dunkel | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | If your operating system seems to Synopsys GmbH | Kaiserstr. 100 | be made by Dr. Frankenstein, then 52134 Herzogenrath, Germany| it is time for a change. +49 2407 9558 (fax? 44: 0) |Try Linux! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 08:51:29AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: Hi, sorry for getting in the middle of the conversation... Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The XFree86 source tree, which contains Mesa (libGL and libOSMesa, the off-screen rendering library), does *not* contain libGLU. I don't honestly know why this choice was originally made (I get the impression it has something do with libGLU being written in C++ -- no other part of the XFree86 source distribution is). Brian stated some months ago (and again last week) he wants to retire the libGLU code from Mesa and use the SGI's Sample Implementation code instead. What you say seems to indicate he changed his mind. There was some discution on the xfree mailing list about including the SGI version of libGLU (maybe even already in CVS as i remember seeing a patch submition regarding it on the mailing list). The main problem is that the SGI version is C++, and not C, which can causes compatibility problems with regard the various C++ compilers that Xfree uses. There are no licence issues i think, as the licence of libLGU is compatible with the xfree licence. Friendly, Sven LUTHER -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
Branden Robinson wrote: [Sorry for the CC, Brian, I just wanted to make sure that people who know better than I can stop me before I do anything stupid] On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:01:53PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: I'm running XFree 4.0.1 for several days on my PC at home now. There seemed to be no serious problems. But on building some OpenGL applications (the OpenGL hacks of xscreensaver) I recognized that the GLU library is gone. Before the update libGLU.so could be found in the old mesag3 package. A similar problem exists for the xlibgl-dev package: The GLU header files are gone. Shouldn't be GLU included in xlibgl1/xlibgl-dev to provide true compatibility to Mesa? Yes, but here's the problem: The XFree86 source tree, which contains Mesa (libGL and libOSMesa, the off-screen rendering library), does *not* contain libGLU. I don't honestly know why this choice was originally made (I get the impression it has something do with libGLU being written in C++ -- no other part of the XFree86 source distribution is). However, a consensus has formed of late among the XFree86 developers, in conjunction with Brian Paul (the mastermind of the Mesa project), that libGLU should be shipped, built and installed with the rest of Mesa as part of the XFree86 distribution. I've corresponded with Brian on this point, and he suggests that the 3 libraries, libGL, libGLU, and libOSMesa, be shipped in one package. I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. So: + xlibosmesa* and xlibgl* will merge into xlibmesa* in (probably) the next XFree86 phase2 .deb release + libGLU will become part of xlibmesa* as soon as upstream XFree86 makes it available; I don't have a timeframe on this + Mesa will continue to be maintained separately from XFree86 itself, though I gather the only real difference will be that XFree86 will decide based on its own needs when it takes snapshots from the Mesa CVS tree; I don't gather that there is a real fork underway Right. + Debian's Mesa packages will thus continue to be separately maintained, for people who don't need the DRI drivers (I don't think there is any functional difference between the official Mesa and XFree86 version of Mesa if DRI is not available -- or not used -- with your video hardware) If you don't have 3D hardware or disable the DRI you can still use the software-based GLX renderer (which is based on Mesa). However, you can't access as many extensions using software GLX as with stand-alone Mesa. + The off-screen rendering library, libOSMesa, is not yet available in the Debian Mesa packages (last I checked); this should be remedied when an official upstream version of Mesa is released with it (which I don't think has happened yet) and when the Debian package maintainer then releases it Right, I haven't made libOSMesa.so part of the regular, stand-alone Mesa disto, yet. Here's the practical, important part: + In the meantime, users are going to have play games behind the back of the packaging system to satisfy any program that requires libGLU: - retrieve the appropriate mesag3 .deb package for your architecture - put it in a subdirectory of /tmp (not /tmp itself) - dpkg-deb -x mesag3-glide2_3.2.1-1_i386.deb . (or whatever the .deb is named) - become root, and return to this directory if necessary - cd usr/lib - as root, cp *libGLU* /usr/lib People who need to compile against the libGLU headers can figure out the analogous steps for mesag3-dev. Sorry about this kludgey situation -- it's life on the bleeding edge. It will be rectified once the XFree86 sources are building libGLU. Yes. Putting GLU into XFree86 is underway. -Brian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
Sven LUTHER [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are no licence issues i think, as the licence of libLGU is compatible with the xfree licence. Of course it compatible, this is the XFree86 license, almost anything is compatible with it. The question is if the Free License B is ok according to the DFSG. Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
Hi, sorry for getting in the middle of the conversation... Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The XFree86 source tree, which contains Mesa (libGL and libOSMesa, the off-screen rendering library), does *not* contain libGLU. I don't honestly know why this choice was originally made (I get the impression it has something do with libGLU being written in C++ -- no other part of the XFree86 source distribution is). Brian stated some months ago (and again last week) he wants to retire the libGLU code from Mesa and use the SGI's Sample Implementation code instead. What you say seems to indicate he changed his mind. One issue with this idea is that the SI is under the SGI Free License B[1] which was discussed on debian-legal sometime ago. Our concern (James' and mine) focused on a clause that states you can't implement the SI in hardware (or something like that, I don't remember the exact wording off the top of my head). -legal raised some questions regarding other clauses in the license (most people seemed to be cool with the one I mention), but nothing clear ever came out. Anyway, you might be interested in exerting some pressure in order to resolve this issue, because GLX on the XFree86 source tree is under this same license (I recall sending you a mail about this more than a month ago, but xserver-xfree86/copyright doesn't list this license) On the positive side, if James Treacy (our mesa maintainer) isn't interested in doing so, eventually I'd like to package the whole SI for Debian. I already have done a bit of work on this, but building it has proven to be tricky, plus I've been tied up with other things lately... + The off-screen rendering library, libOSMesa, is not yet available in the Debian Mesa packages (last I checked); this should be remedied when an official upstream version of Mesa is released with it (which I don't think has happened yet) and when the Debian package maintainer then releases it OSMesa has been a part of Mesa for quite a long time. Cheers, Marcelo [1] http://oss.sgi.com/projects/FreeB
Re: XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
Branden Robinson wrote: However, a consensus has formed of late among the XFree86 developers, in conjunction with Brian Paul (the mastermind of the Mesa project), that libGLU should be shipped, built and installed with the rest of Mesa as part of the XFree86 distribution. I've corresponded with Brian on this point, and he suggests that the 3 libraries, libGL, libGLU, and libOSMesa, be shipped in one package. I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. What is Debian's policy regarding OpenGL libraries provided by the hardware vendor (NVidia, for example)? Don't we get a packaging conflict here? Regards Harri -- Harald Dunkel | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | If your operating system seems to Synopsys GmbH | Kaiserstr. 100 | be made by Dr. Frankenstein, then 52134 Herzogenrath, Germany| it is time for a change. +49 2407 9558 (fax? 44: 0) |Try Linux!
Re: XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 08:51:29AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: Hi, sorry for getting in the middle of the conversation... Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The XFree86 source tree, which contains Mesa (libGL and libOSMesa, the off-screen rendering library), does *not* contain libGLU. I don't honestly know why this choice was originally made (I get the impression it has something do with libGLU being written in C++ -- no other part of the XFree86 source distribution is). Brian stated some months ago (and again last week) he wants to retire the libGLU code from Mesa and use the SGI's Sample Implementation code instead. What you say seems to indicate he changed his mind. There was some discution on the xfree mailing list about including the SGI version of libGLU (maybe even already in CVS as i remember seeing a patch submition regarding it on the mailing list). The main problem is that the SGI version is C++, and not C, which can causes compatibility problems with regard the various C++ compilers that Xfree uses. There are no licence issues i think, as the licence of libLGU is compatible with the xfree licence. Friendly, Sven LUTHER
Re: XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
Branden Robinson wrote: [Sorry for the CC, Brian, I just wanted to make sure that people who know better than I can stop me before I do anything stupid] On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:01:53PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: I'm running XFree 4.0.1 for several days on my PC at home now. There seemed to be no serious problems. But on building some OpenGL applications (the OpenGL hacks of xscreensaver) I recognized that the GLU library is gone. Before the update libGLU.so could be found in the old mesag3 package. A similar problem exists for the xlibgl-dev package: The GLU header files are gone. Shouldn't be GLU included in xlibgl1/xlibgl-dev to provide true compatibility to Mesa? Yes, but here's the problem: The XFree86 source tree, which contains Mesa (libGL and libOSMesa, the off-screen rendering library), does *not* contain libGLU. I don't honestly know why this choice was originally made (I get the impression it has something do with libGLU being written in C++ -- no other part of the XFree86 source distribution is). However, a consensus has formed of late among the XFree86 developers, in conjunction with Brian Paul (the mastermind of the Mesa project), that libGLU should be shipped, built and installed with the rest of Mesa as part of the XFree86 distribution. I've corresponded with Brian on this point, and he suggests that the 3 libraries, libGL, libGLU, and libOSMesa, be shipped in one package. I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. So: + xlibosmesa* and xlibgl* will merge into xlibmesa* in (probably) the next XFree86 phase2 .deb release + libGLU will become part of xlibmesa* as soon as upstream XFree86 makes it available; I don't have a timeframe on this + Mesa will continue to be maintained separately from XFree86 itself, though I gather the only real difference will be that XFree86 will decide based on its own needs when it takes snapshots from the Mesa CVS tree; I don't gather that there is a real fork underway Right. + Debian's Mesa packages will thus continue to be separately maintained, for people who don't need the DRI drivers (I don't think there is any functional difference between the official Mesa and XFree86 version of Mesa if DRI is not available -- or not used -- with your video hardware) If you don't have 3D hardware or disable the DRI you can still use the software-based GLX renderer (which is based on Mesa). However, you can't access as many extensions using software GLX as with stand-alone Mesa. + The off-screen rendering library, libOSMesa, is not yet available in the Debian Mesa packages (last I checked); this should be remedied when an official upstream version of Mesa is released with it (which I don't think has happened yet) and when the Debian package maintainer then releases it Right, I haven't made libOSMesa.so part of the regular, stand-alone Mesa disto, yet. Here's the practical, important part: + In the meantime, users are going to have play games behind the back of the packaging system to satisfy any program that requires libGLU: - retrieve the appropriate mesag3 .deb package for your architecture - put it in a subdirectory of /tmp (not /tmp itself) - dpkg-deb -x mesag3-glide2_3.2.1-1_i386.deb . (or whatever the .deb is named) - become root, and return to this directory if necessary - cd usr/lib - as root, cp *libGLU* /usr/lib People who need to compile against the libGLU headers can figure out the analogous steps for mesag3-dev. Sorry about this kludgey situation -- it's life on the bleeding edge. It will be rectified once the XFree86 sources are building libGLU. Yes. Putting GLU into XFree86 is underway. -Brian
Re: XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
Sven LUTHER [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are no licence issues i think, as the licence of libLGU is compatible with the xfree licence. Of course it compatible, this is the XFree86 license, almost anything is compatible with it. The question is if the Free License B is ok according to the DFSG. Marcelo
XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
[Sorry for the CC, Brian, I just wanted to make sure that people who know better than I can stop me before I do anything stupid] On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:01:53PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: I'm running XFree 4.0.1 for several days on my PC at home now. There seemed to be no serious problems. But on building some OpenGL applications (the OpenGL hacks of xscreensaver) I recognized that the GLU library is gone. Before the update libGLU.so could be found in the old mesag3 package. A similar problem exists for the xlibgl-dev package: The GLU header files are gone. Shouldn't be GLU included in xlibgl1/xlibgl-dev to provide true compatibility to Mesa? Yes, but here's the problem: The XFree86 source tree, which contains Mesa (libGL and libOSMesa, the off-screen rendering library), does *not* contain libGLU. I don't honestly know why this choice was originally made (I get the impression it has something do with libGLU being written in C++ -- no other part of the XFree86 source distribution is). However, a consensus has formed of late among the XFree86 developers, in conjunction with Brian Paul (the mastermind of the Mesa project), that libGLU should be shipped, built and installed with the rest of Mesa as part of the XFree86 distribution. I've corresponded with Brian on this point, and he suggests that the 3 libraries, libGL, libGLU, and libOSMesa, be shipped in one package. I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. So: + xlibosmesa* and xlibgl* will merge into xlibmesa* in (probably) the next XFree86 phase2 .deb release + libGLU will become part of xlibmesa* as soon as upstream XFree86 makes it available; I don't have a timeframe on this + Mesa will continue to be maintained separately from XFree86 itself, though I gather the only real difference will be that XFree86 will decide based on its own needs when it takes snapshots from the Mesa CVS tree; I don't gather that there is a real fork underway + Debian's Mesa packages will thus continue to be separately maintained, for people who don't need the DRI drivers (I don't think there is any functional difference between the official Mesa and XFree86 version of Mesa if DRI is not available -- or not used -- with your video hardware) + The off-screen rendering library, libOSMesa, is not yet available in the Debian Mesa packages (last I checked); this should be remedied when an official upstream version of Mesa is released with it (which I don't think has happened yet) and when the Debian package maintainer then releases it Here's the practical, important part: + In the meantime, users are going to have play games behind the back of the packaging system to satisfy any program that requires libGLU: - retrieve the appropriate mesag3 .deb package for your architecture - put it in a subdirectory of /tmp (not /tmp itself) - dpkg-deb -x mesag3-glide2_3.2.1-1_i386.deb . (or whatever the .deb is named) - become root, and return to this directory if necessary - cd usr/lib - as root, cp *libGLU* /usr/lib People who need to compile against the libGLU headers can figure out the analogous steps for mesag3-dev. Sorry about this kludgey situation -- it's life on the bleeding edge. It will be rectified once the XFree86 sources are building libGLU. -- G. Branden Robinson|Optimists believe we live in the best of Debian GNU/Linux |all possible worlds. Pessimists are [EMAIL PROTECTED] |afraid the optimists are right. http://deadbeast.net/~branden/ | PGP signature
XFree86, Mesa, Debian, and libGLU revisited
[Sorry for the CC, Brian, I just wanted to make sure that people who know better than I can stop me before I do anything stupid] On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:01:53PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: I'm running XFree 4.0.1 for several days on my PC at home now. There seemed to be no serious problems. But on building some OpenGL applications (the OpenGL hacks of xscreensaver) I recognized that the GLU library is gone. Before the update libGLU.so could be found in the old mesag3 package. A similar problem exists for the xlibgl-dev package: The GLU header files are gone. Shouldn't be GLU included in xlibgl1/xlibgl-dev to provide true compatibility to Mesa? Yes, but here's the problem: The XFree86 source tree, which contains Mesa (libGL and libOSMesa, the off-screen rendering library), does *not* contain libGLU. I don't honestly know why this choice was originally made (I get the impression it has something do with libGLU being written in C++ -- no other part of the XFree86 source distribution is). However, a consensus has formed of late among the XFree86 developers, in conjunction with Brian Paul (the mastermind of the Mesa project), that libGLU should be shipped, built and installed with the rest of Mesa as part of the XFree86 distribution. I've corresponded with Brian on this point, and he suggests that the 3 libraries, libGL, libGLU, and libOSMesa, be shipped in one package. I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. So: + xlibosmesa* and xlibgl* will merge into xlibmesa* in (probably) the next XFree86 phase2 .deb release + libGLU will become part of xlibmesa* as soon as upstream XFree86 makes it available; I don't have a timeframe on this + Mesa will continue to be maintained separately from XFree86 itself, though I gather the only real difference will be that XFree86 will decide based on its own needs when it takes snapshots from the Mesa CVS tree; I don't gather that there is a real fork underway + Debian's Mesa packages will thus continue to be separately maintained, for people who don't need the DRI drivers (I don't think there is any functional difference between the official Mesa and XFree86 version of Mesa if DRI is not available -- or not used -- with your video hardware) + The off-screen rendering library, libOSMesa, is not yet available in the Debian Mesa packages (last I checked); this should be remedied when an official upstream version of Mesa is released with it (which I don't think has happened yet) and when the Debian package maintainer then releases it Here's the practical, important part: + In the meantime, users are going to have play games behind the back of the packaging system to satisfy any program that requires libGLU: - retrieve the appropriate mesag3 .deb package for your architecture - put it in a subdirectory of /tmp (not /tmp itself) - dpkg-deb -x mesag3-glide2_3.2.1-1_i386.deb . (or whatever the .deb is named) - become root, and return to this directory if necessary - cd usr/lib - as root, cp *libGLU* /usr/lib People who need to compile against the libGLU headers can figure out the analogous steps for mesag3-dev. Sorry about this kludgey situation -- it's life on the bleeding edge. It will be rectified once the XFree86 sources are building libGLU. -- G. Branden Robinson|Optimists believe we live in the best of Debian GNU/Linux |all possible worlds. Pessimists are [EMAIL PROTECTED] |afraid the optimists are right. http://deadbeast.net/~branden/ | pgpXZU0aL5OPO.pgp Description: PGP signature
