From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_NONE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,PLING_QUERY autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from pacman.mweb.co.za (pacman.mweb.co.za [196.2.45.77]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B47AABD53 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 16:49:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cpt-dial-196-30-179-73.mweb.co.za ([196.30.179.73] helo=nosferatu.lan) by pacman.mweb.co.za with esmtp (Exim 4.01) id 17AFYa-0006T8-00 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 21 May 2002 21:44:28 +0200 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Mesa >=3.5 masked!? From: Martin Schlemmer To: Gentoo-Dev In-Reply-To: <20020520233212.Y8474@localhost> References: <20020520142936.E8474@localhost> <1021929278.6483.117.camel@nosferatu.lan> <20020520233212.Y8474@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.5 Date: 21 May 2002 23:51:00 +0200 Message-Id: <1022017861.7498.35.camel@nosferatu.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 5a542f86-e0e2-4239-a346-0f310f1e4a5a X-Archives-Hash: eca202ed786ae3788e51b5cab176a843 On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 00:32, Jos=E9 Fonseca wrote: > If you think that Mesa itself is redundant and should be masked, ok -=20 > that's another option (just now I've been troubleshooting a Gentoo user=20 > which installed Mesa over X and DRI wasn't working) -, but the current=20 > nowhere-land situation makes no sense. Mesa-glu _is_ being used, only tha= t=20 > is the 3.5 version - for no reason. And there have been quite some=20 > bugfixes since. >=20 > Bottom line, either Mesa is completely masked out or is completely=20 > unmasked, and the same goes for GLU. Keeping an older version for no=20 > reason makes no sense. >=20 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=20 /usr/portage/profile//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, --=20 Martin Schlemmer Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Developer Cape Town, South Africa