[arch-dev-public] mesa packaging, libGL handling

Allan McRae allan at archlinux.org
Fri Feb 15 10:00:09 EST 2013

On 15/02/13 22:07, Jan de Groot wrote:
> At this moment our Mesa package is a mess. It contains several split
> packages, some even just containing one file. Most of these packages
> depend on eachother, so other than "let's make it look like Debian" I
> don't see a big need for splitups anymore.
> The initial splitup was *-dri due to its size, libgl due to nvidia-utils
> replacing it and mesa for the rest of the package. I would propse a
> different structure: one single mesa package which doesn't ship
> libGL.so.1 and libGL.so symlinks.
> These symlinks should be removed from other packages as well and should
> get placed in post_install/post_upgrade. In case of nvidia-utils and
> catalyst it should replace them, in case of mesa it should only place
> them if they don't exist or point to nonexistent files.
> On post_remove the symlinks should get removed in case they link to
> nonexistent files (mesa) or reverted to libGL.so from mesa if that is
> still installed (nvidia, catalyst).
> This should make the PKGBUILD a lot more readable and should improve our
> situation with (make)dependencies at the cost of some extra
> driver/library/header bloatware that gets installed in case you need
> libGL for something.
> An additional downside of this implementation is that namcap doesn't
> know where libGL.so.1 comes from, resulting in "depends on uninstalled
> dependency libGL.so.1".
> What do other developers think about this approach?

-1 to having untracked files in /usr/lib

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list