-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Today, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>I've had several people asking me why GLUT is not included in
>XFree86's Mesa. We ship separate Mesa which has it, but if I
>understand correctly, Brian Paul has added the needed bits to the
>Mesa trunk so that it works with 3.3.6 now also. When this makes
>it into an official XFree86 release, we won't need external Mesa
>I don't believe, and likely will just ship XFree86 Mesa.
>I've mentioned this to people, and they are worried that GLUT
>won't be supported because it is not part of XFree86 Mesa.
>I do not use Mesa myself, so I don't understand how big a problem
>removing GLUT from the distro might be. Is there plans to
>integrate GLUT with XFree86 4.2.0 at all? If not, what is the
>reasoning, and should we support it separately do you think?
>Any advice appreciated.
As I understand it it's a licensing issue. glut is released under the strict
GPL, and XFree86 is not. The licenses are not entirely compatible, and since
the XFree86 guys (rightly) do not want 90% of their code under one license, and
then some random bits in other license -- this just makes it a lot harder for
people to work out what they can and cannot do with the code.
I think that the best way for you to package X, GL, GLU and glut would be to
have all four in seperate packages. glut really should be separate since it
uses a different license, GLU should be separate from GL because you want to
have more than one libGL.so (Mesa software for 3.3.6, Mesa GLX DRI for 4.x.y,
and Nvidias binary one for 4.x.y), but libGLU.so does not change. And that
just leaves X...
Of course, this is just my opinion, but perhaps it would help distribution
vendors, and more so end-users if all concerned could agree on a standard way
of packaging up X, GL, GLU and glut...
echo bzidd@... | tr "bizndfohces" "pwgd9ociaku"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----