libGL* dependencies (was: Re: rpms/xforms/devel xforms.spec,1.9,1.10)

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 09:39 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 08:25 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, den 18.10.2005, 09:05 +0300 schrieb Ville Skyttä:
> > > On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 07:33 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > > Am Dienstag, den 18.10.2005, 06:43 +0200 schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
> > > > > 
> > > > > For the moment, I'll stay with real package dependencies, such as
> > > > > "BR: xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL" for my GL based packages in FE.
> > > > 
> > > > And IMHO that is the right decision.
> > > 
> > > But it won't be any different from the libGL approach regarding the
> > > x86_64 case where both x86_64 and i386 repositories are enabled,
> > > right?
> > 
> > /me is not sure if he understood the question correctly. Sorry.
> > 
> > So just to be sure: I assume by "where both x86_64 and i386 repositories
> > are enabled" you meant "where i386 packages from the x86_64-repositories
> > are not excluded in the yum or mock config" (as they are in the buildsys
> > afaik). And with the "libGL approach" you mean "BR: libgl = 1". 
> 
> I don't know what I mean ;), just parroting Ralf's earlier "random
> accident" concern, and I'll shut up now to prevent further confusion.
By "random accident" I meant, "yum install <something>" just happened to
install the correct package by random luck (be it by ordering inside of
yum.conf, by timestamps on repodata, by file order somewhere or
whatever), because in the past, we've had cases wrt. libGL were yum
happened sometimes to install the correct libGL.so.1()(64bit) and
sometimes libGL.so.1.

IIRC, the causes had never been finally clarified, but all of the usual
suspects had been involved, because multiple changes had taken place
almost simultaneously. rpm invented ()(64bit), the
XFree86/Mesa->xorg-x11 transition, Provides: libGL had been added,
people continuing to use BR: XFree86 and/or libGL.so.1, packages's
packaging having changed, package dependencies having changed etc. :)

IIRC, it was even you, Thorsten, how once tripped over one of these
issues with one of my packages (IIRC, it was Inventor).

> But it's probably the above, and from what I understand (not having an
> x86_64 box around
Neither have I. I only maintain several libGL based packages in FE and
am using some of them for active development. Occasionally I trip over
these issue inside of the buildsystem, when things suddenly start/stop
working ...

>  nor any that would use any 3rd party libGL* stuff),
I can't avoid to use them ... performance-wise Mesa-libGL is more a bad
joke, than a usable GL implementation ... :)

> "BR: xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL" sounds like the safest approach indeed for
> now.

Except that you can't avoid XFree86-* if you want compatibility with
older RHLs.

Ralf