Craig Dunwoody wrote:
> Hi Olivier,
> olivier.michel writes:
> > I would like to submit my GLU rpm SPECS file so that it could be
> > included (or merged) into the official tree of the OpenGL sample
> > implementation. This would facilitate the port of GLU rpms to other
> > platforms (I have done it for i386 and pcc but it could be done also
> > for Sparc, Alpha, etc.). To who shall I send this rpm.spec file for
> > submission ?
> Please do send me the file. I haven't fully formed an opinion on what
> to do here. The OpenGL-SI already has a GLU RPM spec file
> (rpmspecs/oss-opengl-glu.spec), but I'm not sure how widely (if at
> all) it has been used.
> The default Red Hat Linux 7.0 workstation installation includes "Mesa"
> and "Mesa-devel" RPMs, which include the Mesa implementation of the
> GLU API. The relatively coarse granularity of this packaging is
> convenient in some ways, but it does make it more difficult for
> developer-types to replace just one component (e.g. GLU), due to RPM
> I would like to further explore longer-term OpenGL RPM packaging
> options with folks who do this for some of the major distributions.
> For now, I think it does make sense to put GLU RPMs (based on your
> packaging) up on the Mesa site, for the convenience of developers.
> I'm less certain how much of an impact would result from changing the
> GLU RPM packaging provided by the OpenGL-SI, but I'll be happy to take
> a look at it.
I agree that GL packaging is an issue that needs some standardization.
I spoke with some folks at NVIDIA (GeorgeK, TerrenceR, MarkK) about
this recently. They'd also like to see a finer granularity of packing
so that they can more easily install their OpenGL on Linux.
Packaging is an issue I haven't had much involvement in so far. I'm
certainly open to people's ideas. Does someone want to make a