From: Brian P. <br...@va...> - 2000-07-20 14:33:36
|
Olivier Michel wrote: > > Hello, > > Sorry, I was off last week and I am just back from holidays reading my > 142 e-mails... > Apparently Dave commited a number of changes I requested. However, it is > apparently not yet complete (since the glu.h header is not yet fixed, it > still includes the OpenGL 1.0 compatibility lines), but I guess Dave is > currently working working on that... > Hence my RPM .spec file doesn't work yet from the CVS source (the glu.h > file still needs to be patched by hand). However, I can provide all what > I have: > > 1) The method to patch the glu.h and build the rpm from my modified > .spec file. This might be useful to build binary rpms for other > platforms. I will send them upon request. > > 2) The binary package for linux i386 (it is already available from > ftp://ftp.cyberbotics.com as mentioned in a previous e-mail, along with > a RPM package for Mesa without its GLU). > > Otherwise, we have to wait for Dave to fix the glu.h problem and to > add/merge my RPM .spec file to the CVS tree. > > I will rebuild the binary RPMs for linux i386 for both SGI SI GLU and > Mesa core GL (without GLU) as soon as Mesa-3.3 is out. However, I would > appreciate if they could be hosted somewhere else than on my ftp site > (since it cannot support high traffic). You shouldn't have to wait for a Mesa release to put out the SI GLU package. I was hoping to release Mesa 3.2.1 and 3.3 this week but a last-minute bug regression in evaluators is postponing that, probably until after SIGGRAPH. Dave's probably busy preparing for SIGGRAPH too. So, I might be two weeks before we're all ready. > By the way, how should I name the final versions of those packages ? > > mesa-without-glu-3.3-1.i386.rpm and sgi-si-glu-1.3-1.i386.rpm, or simply > Mesa-3.3-1.i386.rpm and sgi-glu-1.3-1.i386.rpm ? I prefer the later. > Another option could be to merge Mesa and SGI GLU into a single RPM > binary package named Mesa-with-sgi-glu-3.3-1.i386.rpm or simply > Mesa-3.3-1.i386.rpm (in this case, the RPM build process will be a bit > more tricky, but that's not a problem for me). I'd rather keep the packages separate. I expect that the GLU package won't be updated as often as Mesa. Also, it would make the Mesa package smaller. > Personaly, I like the idea of the Mesa-3.3-1.i386.rpm containing > everything, but this might be conficting with other versions using Mesa > GLU. By the way, Brian, will you officially drop Mesa GLU, i.e., remove > it from Mesa distribution and recommanding to use SGI GLU instead ? Yes, I'd like to drop Mesa's GLU at some point but I haven't worked out the details. -Brian |