>As said in another mail, I agree for glext.h but not for GL.h. Or if we go >that way, why not ship a 'valid' set of gl.h / glext.h / glxext.h that are >known to work instead of redoing all the constants ?
Curiously, why glext and not gl? I'd be more for shipping all 3 if required or merging them all into one wine header. Could we not just be causing ourselves the same problem further down the line otherwise? >For example, we know that Raphael has a configuration where his tree >builds... Well, let him ship his .hs in Wine :-) Perhaps they are copyright nvidia? :-) Jason