Re: [gentoo-dev] Mesa >=3.5 masked!?

[Martin Schlemmer <azarah@gentoo.org>]

On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 00:32, José Fonseca wrote:

> If you think that Mesa itself is redundant and should be masked, ok - 
> that's another option (just now I've been troubleshooting a Gentoo user 
> which installed Mesa over X and DRI wasn't working) -, but the current 
> nowhere-land situation makes no sense. Mesa-glu _is_ being used, only that 
> is the 3.5 version - for no reason. And there have been quite some 
> bugfixes since.
> 
> Bottom line, either Mesa is completely masked out or is completely 
> unmasked, and the same goes for GLU. Keeping an older version for no 
> reason makes no sense.
> 

Sorry for the late reply, but was MIA a bit.

True, we still have the mesa ebuilds, but the virtuals
should (virtual/glu) be satisfied by xfree.  Yes, I know
they all should be masked, but havent gotten to it, or
rather, im still sorda in limbo.

What installed Mesa over X?  If this happens, the ebuild
is broken, or somebody messed with the 
/usr/portage/profile/<foo>/virtuals .

Getting Mesa 4.0.x to work with opengl-update ... might
be a plan, but then I think we should drop the seperate
ebuilds, and only have mesa (not mesa, and mesa-glu).
How does 4.0.1 work with DRI currently ?  Last reports
I had, was that the ones (3.4.2 distributed with xfree)
still worked best in 99% of setups.  So basically ...
is there really a need for 4.0.1 ?


PS: CC me if you reply.

Greetings,

-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa