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=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DMARC_REJECT,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,PLING_QUERY autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C21AC454 for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 10:57:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost ([213.105.250.141]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020521155751.ZCEN29981.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@localhost> for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 16:57:51 +0100 Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 16:56:12 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-15?Q?Jos=E9?= Fonseca To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Mesa >=3.5 masked!? Message-ID: <20020521165612.I8474@localhost> References: <20020520142936.E8474@localhost> <1021929278.6483.117.camel@nosferatu.lan> <20020520233212.Y8474@localhost> <1021987735.5875.72.camel@pegasus.lasj.dk> <20020521164421.F8474@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20020521164421.F8474@localhost>; from j_r_fonseca@yahoo.co.uk on Tue, May 21, 2002 at 16:44:21 +0100 X-Mailer: Balsa 1.2.4 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: 299945ef-5389-4e22-a04a-5cf618aa48a5 X-Archives-Hash: 1b9ef5c07204006f9d7300182b457c89 My previous post had quite a deal of incorrections which I've corrected here.. more specifically its' /usr/lib/lib* and not /usr/lib*, and I meanr "virtual/glu" and not "virtual/glut"... I'm sorry for the inconvenience.. On 2002.05.21 14:28 Lars S. Jensen wrote: > On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 00:32, José Fonseca wrote: > > ... > > > > 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. > Because Mesa was needed for OpenGL support before XFree version 4.2.0-rX > >From ebuild 4.1.0 > #We're no longer including libGLU from here. Packaged separately, from > separate sources. > > OpenGL was an option at that time. > I see. I got the impression that libGLU was still necessary separately because there was no /usr/lib/libGLU.so. Looking into XFree-4.2.0-r9.ebuild I see that you link to /usr/lib/libMesaGLU.so . Why is that? In principle every application should link to /usr/lib/libGLU.so. > XFree use/is based on the Mesa 3.4.2: > # Mesa updated to the post-3.4.2 3.4 branch version as of November > 2001. > Yes. The next XFree86 release will be based on Mesa 4.0 since that's what the current DRI CVS already has. > The latest Mesa is 4.0.2 but the ebuild is not 'up to date' missing > support for 'opengl-update' and it shall work with al > > To make the ebiuld for Mesa-4.0.[12] you need to support 'opengl-update' > see /usr/portage/x11-base/xfree/files/4.2.0-r9/opengl-update > , /usr/portage/x11-base/xfree/xfree-4.2.0-r9.ebuild > and /usr/portage/media-video/nvidia-glx/nvidia-glx-1.0.2880.ebuild > > And you may need to relink all programs/libs that use opengl if you get > MesaOS support included. Thanks for the explanation. Making Mesa use the 'opengl-update' system seems a much better way indeed. But there's still the problem of GLU. It really shouldn't be included seperately by deprecated libraries providing "virtual/glu" , it should be managed by the 'opengl-update' script too. GLUT is the only thing that is independent of the specific OpenGL implementation, being outside the scope of 'opengl-update'. José Fonseca