On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Jan de Groot <[email protected]> wrote: > At this moment our Mesa package is a mess. It contains several split > packages, some even just containing one file. Most of these packages > depend on eachother, so other than "let's make it look like Debian" I > don't see a big need for splitups anymore. > > The initial splitup was *-dri due to its size, libgl due to nvidia-utils > replacing it and mesa for the rest of the package. I would propse a > different structure: one single mesa package which doesn't ship > libGL.so.1 and libGL.so symlinks. > These symlinks should be removed from other packages as well and should > get placed in post_install/post_upgrade. In case of nvidia-utils and > catalyst it should replace them, in case of mesa it should only place > them if they don't exist or point to nonexistent files. > On post_remove the symlinks should get removed in case they link to > nonexistent files (mesa) or reverted to libGL.so from mesa if that is > still installed (nvidia, catalyst). > > This should make the PKGBUILD a lot more readable and should improve our > situation with (make)dependencies at the cost of some extra > driver/library/header bloatware that gets installed in case you need > libGL for something. > An additional downside of this implementation is that namcap doesn't > know where libGL.so.1 comes from, resulting in "depends on uninstalled > dependency libGL.so.1". > > What do other developers think about this approach?
I was just looking at mesa a few days ago, and agree that it should be merged. I'm not a huge fan of post_* magic, though. Could we perhaps avoid this by putting the symlinks in a separate package 'libgl'? I suppose the structure should be that libgl would pull in mesa; and nvidia and friends would also pull in mesa but replace/conflict/provide libgl? I might have gotten this slightly wrong as I don't know mesa too well, but I think something along these lines should work... Cheers, Tom
