On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 18:44, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:26:54PM +0200, Michel D�nzer 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 D�nzer \ 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]
