This one time, at band camp, John D. Hendrickson wrote: >Package: glut-doc >Version: 3.7-25 >Severity: important > >-------------------------------------- >I have no manpages for glut. And before I upgraded to sarge I *had* >them. ie, man glutReshapeWindow
Debian switched to freeglut, which does not include man pages. I am planning on repackaging the man pages from old school GLUT. >Its a pet peive: since I have a fully written opengl app to port to >linux and plan to use GLUT for the GUI. Sure. Other people have filed this bug, if you'd read the BTS before filing this report you'd see you're not alone. >I'm sick of DM's splitting SIMPLE DOWNLOADS into 8 peices and KILLING >the documentation in the process! > >I'm scared that Debian's DM's are ignoring the Social Contract. Free >Glut is CERTAINLY a slightly revised SGI product which INSTALLS OVER >SGI's OpenGL released libraries. And I hear in the "mentor's mailing >list" that some maintainers think I'm stupid for thinking that I should >be able to retrograde packages from Woody: the fellow state that progress of >Debain is more important than previously packaged app compatibility: and >we can see that here with freeglut clearly. > >I have no manpages for glut. And before I upgraded to sarge I *had* >them. ie, glutReshapeWindow > >I then did this on another machine: > >apt-get install glutg3 glutg3-dev libglut3 glut-doc glut-data >libglut3-dev glutg3-dev freeglut3 freeglut3-dev > >And again, find /usr/share/man/ -name "*glut*" returns no even a broken >link. > >Here's what I installed on two different machines: > >Package: glut-doc >Package: glutg3 >Package: glut-data >Package: libglut3-dev >Package: libglut3 >Package: freeglut3 >Package: freeglut3-dev >Package: freeglut3-dbg > >It's ??LKJSDF:LKS ONE .tar.gz now its 8 installs? > >-------------------------------------- > >I can't *beleive* debian dropped SGI's "glut". While free glut may be >better in some person's view: I must rather link against a library >everyone has for sake of making binary distirbutions. > >I'm sure of SGI's ability to keep OpenGL withing GL specs (per pixel >existence and color garuntee for most of GL being of critical importance). > >How do we know SGI won't release another downstream? Joe packager >of freeglut says "he doesn't think so. > >So what. I have to install glut-3.6 in a chroot linux to make sure an >app I'll distribute works with freeglut? How do I install the OLD glut? > >Do I install Potato's GLUT? Wait. No potato packages aren't compatible >anymore. I could install WOODY's. > >However. I've been told in the Debian Mentor's channel that Debian >Maintainers feel that being backward compatible with Woody is stupid. > >So. I'm stupid!!!!!!!!! > > >So I'll ask: > > Why does Debian's docs refer to old version installations if > Debian maintainers think it's not necessary? > > How do I get the origional glut installed? > > How do I get glut docs installed? > > Oh SHIT. Woody has glut-3.3!!! Woody isn't up to date either. > > --> debian doesn't have an up to date SGI glut. > > Why the does Debians Social Contract say can't you offer > altered softwares that isntall over an official release already > in the public?? > > What is the alternatives system for when joe anyone can clobber > SGI's libraries? > > Why was POOL made by origional debian maintainers if not to > store packages to make them available to ALL debian releases > (except Potato, the documentated exception). > > Or are the mentors just pulling my chain? > > >Alright. I'm stupid. Send me an scathing answer: like DM's usually do >no matter how nice the email is: But I'm getting tired DM's throwing >away the best intentions of the origional members. > >Should I tell all other linux and windows users to upgrade to *my* idea >of a better glut and make all their applications run against it? >(costing them a good hour of wasted time in the process)? Maybe I >should beg them to and tell them I'm a cripple ware guy. > >That's why joe should have named his project "freeglut" and kept his >package quite separate from the REAL glut unless this guy *garuntees* he >won't diverge the compatibility for his own purposes: and can he do >that? Promises promises. > >Not a happy camper. Getting tired of Debian's new compatibility issues >with previous Debian releases and DM's saying that old packages aren't really >needed because of their timestamp and because no DM has time to simply >put them in the next release. > >For instance - I previsouly discovered BIND's documentation was missing >altogether in my version of sarge. The author said "what >documentation?" And when I sent him a definitive list: he didn't reply. Thanks for your feedback. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
