Re, >>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?
I not approve to merge all gl headers into one HUGE header. I only want to have its the minimalist header where we only define what we need. >>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? :-) Yes, but i think they redistribuable. (they are here: http://cvs1.nvidia.com/inc/GL/) Else we can always use last mesa headers. >Jason Raphael