From: Philip W. <pg...@do...> - 2001-07-19 12:25:01
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Today, Stephen J Baker wrote: >On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Philip Willoughby wrote: >> I think that the best way for you to package X, GL, GLU and glut would be to >> have all four in seperate packages. > >I think this is the worst of all possible worlds. > >People have a TERRIBLE time getting all the versions of their >software lined up right and finding all the packages they need >in order to install some end product like a games or something. > >The fewer opportunities there are for error, the better. > >Since EVERY OpenGL program is going to need X and GL, and maybe >90% of them need GLU and perhaps 50% need GLUT, it really does >make sense to ship them all together. I cannot agree with this -- it means you need to upgrade all of them (or rather download a huge package with the old versions in again) when any one changes. So long as glut depends on libGLU.so, libGL.so, libX11.so etc. and GLU depends on libGL.so users will be able to mix-and-match. As you have just said, there are two sources of glut, GLU can be had from Mesa or SGIs reference implementation (I believe SGIs is the recommended as it's newer), and GL can be Mesa Xlib for software X 3.3.x, DRI/drm Mesa for 4.x.y, or nvidias version. Until there is only one version of GL, GLU, and glut that everyone agrees on, there is no sense in packaging all three in one. Regards, Philip Willoughby - -- echo bz...@nf... | tr "bizndfohces" "pwgd9ociaku" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7VtGYTEXlrOaAVckRAh4GAKDWUs7rWORG2r7EHQTQPflTKaw7PACeKZJV 4/EuFpbbTfr/PBWK2nMi7Co= =8F7e -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |