[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ogl-sample] GLU SPECS file

To: Craig Dunwoody <dunwoody@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ogl-sample] GLU SPECS file
From: Olivier Michel <Olivier.Michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 11:58:45 +0200
Cc: ogl-sample@xxxxxxxxxxx, brianp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: Cyberbotics Ltd.
References: <200009290219.e8T2JVJ03086@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: ogl-sample@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-ogl-sample@xxxxxxxxxxx
Craig Dunwoody wrote:

> 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.

I had a look at it, but I could not make any useful thing with it...
(many apparently interesting things are actually commented out). Is it
broken ? Are there any instructions on how to use it ?

> 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
> conflicts.

Sure. I acknowledge this problem.

> 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 just sent them to Brian.

> 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 believe that we have two options:

Either (1) merge Mesa GL and SGI GLU into a single set of packages:

Mesa and Mesa-devel: core Mesa GL and SGI GLU.

Or (2) provide two sets of packages:

Mesa and Mesa-devel: core Mesa GL without any GLU.
oss-opengl-glu and oss-opengl-glu-devel: SGI GLU.

The second option was completed (no major problem).
The first option is however more user friendly since it makes no change
for the user comparing to the current packaging granularity. Building the
packages would in this case require Mesa source and SGI OpenGL source,
but it's pretty easy to do with rpm. However, I don't know if there are
legal issues about mixing differents packages that have different
licenses into a single RPM... I guess that both copyright holders must
agree before I can proceed...

Anyway, in the future, it would be really nice to officially replace Mesa
GLU by SGI OSS GLU in the Mesa source tree. That would make RPM packaging
easier, and it would be more clear for the users (and more friendly for
the developers using GLU tesselators...).


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>