Olivier Michel wrote:
> Sorry, I was off last week and I am just back from holidays reading my
> 142 e-mails...
> Apparently Dave commited a number of changes I requested. However, it is
> apparently not yet complete (since the glu.h header is not yet fixed, it
> still includes the OpenGL 1.0 compatibility lines), but I guess Dave is
> currently working working on that...
> Hence my RPM .spec file doesn't work yet from the CVS source (the glu.h
> file still needs to be patched by hand). However, I can provide all what
> I have:
> 1) The method to patch the glu.h and build the rpm from my modified
> .spec file. This might be useful to build binary rpms for other
> platforms. I will send them upon request.
> 2) The binary package for linux i386 (it is already available from
> ftp://ftp.cyberbotics.com as mentioned in a previous e-mail, along with
> a RPM package for Mesa without its GLU).
> Otherwise, we have to wait for Dave to fix the glu.h problem and to
> add/merge my RPM .spec file to the CVS tree.
> I will rebuild the binary RPMs for linux i386 for both SGI SI GLU and
> Mesa core GL (without GLU) as soon as Mesa-3.3 is out. However, I would
> appreciate if they could be hosted somewhere else than on my ftp site
> (since it cannot support high traffic).
You shouldn't have to wait for a Mesa release to put out the SI GLU
I was hoping to release Mesa 3.2.1 and 3.3 this week but a last-minute
bug regression in evaluators is postponing that, probably until after
SIGGRAPH. Dave's probably busy preparing for SIGGRAPH too.
So, I might be two weeks before we're all ready.
> By the way, how should I name the final versions of those packages ?
> mesa-without-glu-3.3-1.i386.rpm and sgi-si-glu-1.3-1.i386.rpm, or simply
> Mesa-3.3-1.i386.rpm and sgi-glu-1.3-1.i386.rpm ?
I prefer the later.
> Another option could be to merge Mesa and SGI GLU into a single RPM
> binary package named Mesa-with-sgi-glu-3.3-1.i386.rpm or simply
> Mesa-3.3-1.i386.rpm (in this case, the RPM build process will be a bit
> more tricky, but that's not a problem for me).
I'd rather keep the packages separate. I expect that the GLU package
won't be updated as often as Mesa. Also, it would make the Mesa package
> Personaly, I like the idea of the Mesa-3.3-1.i386.rpm containing
> everything, but this might be conficting with other versions using Mesa
> GLU. By the way, Brian, will you officially drop Mesa GLU, i.e., remove
> it from Mesa distribution and recommanding to use SGI GLU instead ?
Yes, I'd like to drop Mesa's GLU at some point but I haven't worked
out the details.