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

["José Fonseca" <j_r_fonseca@yahoo.co.uk>]

On 2002.05.20 22:14 Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-05-20 at 15:29, José Fonseca wrote:
> 
> > I don't see how the first comment can be true as Mesa is an
> implementation
> > of the OpenGL standard which, besides of source compatibility, also has
> 
> > binary compatibility within a platform. Mesa releases notes also don't
> > mention nothing like that.
> >
> > Regarding the second comment I found the referring bug number 245. It
> says
> > that NVIDIA can't use the SGI libGLU.la 1.3 included in Mesa >=3.5. If
> so
> > then why is the same SGI libGLU 1.3 available trhu the sgi-oss-glu
> ebuild?
> > Stranger is that the "Nvidia OpenGL Configuration mini-HOWTO"
> > (http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/mini/Nvidia-OpenGL-Configuration/) uses Mesa
> 
> > 4.0.1 in the tutorial, but on the other hand the author does state that
> 
> > "not had time to test all the procedures"...
> >
> > So it seems that there is quite a bit of misunderstanding. Is it mine
> or
> > should I fill in a bug report?
> >
> 
> Point is ... experience shows that those included with xfree
> works 99% of the time, if not 100%. If you want to use
> 4.0.1, go for it ... you just get to keep the pieces.

This doesn't address the question. If so then why is Mesa in Gentoo at 
all!? Since Gentoo distributes Mesa then there is no reason to not have 
Mesa 4.0.

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.


José Fonseca