Ralph Giles wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm curious about the status of the Mesa-is-not-OpenGL issue. I've gotten
> the impression that things are a little more relaxed with the library name
> change, etc.
The library filename change is just an effort to improve interoperability
with other OpenGL implementations. It has nothing to do with the OpenGL
trademark or licensing.
In fact, in light of recent discussion on the OpenGL/Linux standards
list, I _may_ wind up reverting back to the old library naming scheme
for Mesa 3.1.
> Specifically, this came up in the context of adding the mga GLX module to
> Debian. Currently there are two conflicting Mesa packages (X and GGI) but
> that doesn't scale. The obvious thing would be to have a "this
> package provides OpenGL" line in each package that provides libGL,
> and have clients just depend on "provides OpenGL". This is traditionally
> how Debian handles such things. My question then is whether we can do with
> with Mesa without implying that Mesa is a certified complient OpenGL(tm)
> implementation. And if not, can anybody suggest an alternate name?
As we all know, Mesa is not a true OpenGL implementation. We have to
be careful to keep that clear. If you need a description of Mesa for
the installer I'd suggest something like this:
"Mesa is a 3D graphics library suitable for developing and executing
applications which use the OpenGL API."
> As you know, Debian is very concerned about "doing the right thing" in
> these cases so it's important to be clear on whether this is ok.
Yes. I'm glad Debian is concerned too.
Thanks, Ralph.
-Brian
_______________________________________________
Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
