Mesa 6.5 Development Release

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 03:25:42PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:

 > BTW, the fact that this doesn't get triggered by
 > libgl1-mesa-{glx,dri} alerted me that those don't seem to get built
 > optimally; e.g., the ASM_* variables don't seem to get set. Marcelo,
 > was there any particular reason you created Debian specific build
 > configs instead of using the stock ones?

 Is "because the stock ones don't work for Debian" good enough?

 Option one is patch the upstream configs.  The pro for this is that I
 don't have to track changes to upstream and copy them over to the
 Debian configs.  The con is that I would have to patch the upstream
 configs so much that the pro would get diluted.

 Option two is do what I did.

 Interestingly enough, upstream has exactly the same problem I describe
 in option one.  If you diff the different variants of the same
 configuration (e.g. plain vs i386-optimized) you'll notice they have
 drifted away.

 Furthermore, upstream's configuration don't map well to Debian.  I'm
 going from memory here.  That said, for example what upstream calls
 SPARC is not the same thing that Debian calls SPARC.

 > > Finally there's these two:
 > > 
 > >     W: libgl1-mesa-swx11-dbg: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
 > >     W: libgl1-mesa-swx11-dbg: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
 > > 
 > > Which is apparently due to /usr/lib/debug not being controlled by the
 > > dynamic linker. I guess the calls to ldconfig can thus be removed?
 > 
 > I think so.

 If removing that warning the proper way makes someone much happier, be
 my guest, send a patch.  Adding a Lintian override is not the proper
 way.

 Marcelo