Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Eric Sandall wrote:
>>Brian Paul said:
>>>Right. I think the Linux disto vendors are anxious for this too.
>>RedHat especially has been talking about removing glut entirely from their
>>distro due to the licensing and some of the problems that not being able
>>to change it may cause. They have also talked about using freeglut as a
>>replacement, but the lack of visible releases has them thinking it is
> I can comment officially on this for Red Hat. I've already added
> freeglut to rawhide about 2-3 weeks or so ago, in hopes people
> would start playing with it and any problems could be found
> sooner than later, however I haven't yet removed GLUT from
> rawhide so that may be counter to my goal. ;o)
> My plan is to have freeglut completely replace GLUT in Red Hat
> Linux, as freeglut is truely free software with an acceptable
> license, and that is important to both myself as an OSS
> developer, and to Red Hat as a company.
>>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90734 (No access
>>anymore, RH seems to have removed read permissions...)
> Yeah, the bug started turning into a complaint center for people
> who require GLUT to bitch and whine about my plan of removing
> GLUT and replacing it with freeglut, so I killed the bug report
> as it no longer served any useful purpose.
> Basically, unless major problems arise, which I majorly doubt,
> freeglut is now officially part of Red Hat Linux, and GLUT will
> most likely be removed in the next release. I may remove GLUT
> now anyway, as it can be added back later if problems arise with
> freeglut that aren't fixable in time for our next release. This
> would further push people to use freeglut instead as well.
> Any comments/feedback on my plans, etc. would be greatly
Have you considered installing symlinks pointing from libglut.so.3 to
libfreeglut-1.3.so? I think that could help users.
I'd like to see GLUT programs link/run with the original GLUT or
FreeGLUT without recompiling/relinking.
Also note that FreeGLUT produces the following libs:
libfreeglut-1.3.la -> ../libfreeglut-1.3.la
libfreeglut-1.3.so -> libfreeglut-1.3.so.0.0.0*
libfreeglut-1.3.so.0 -> libfreeglut-1.3.so.0.0.0*
I'm wondering why the typical conventions aren't used to wind up with:
libfreeglut.so -> libfreeglut.so.1
libfreeglut.so.1 -> libfreeglut.so.1.3