[lsb-discuss] Navigator reporting GL missing on Ubuntu 10.x

[Denis Silakov]

On 01/21/11 15:57, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> lsb-discuss-bounces at lists.linux-foundation.org wrote:
>   
>> Fair enough. Pragmatically speaking though, the LSB requires
>> support for *an* opengl implementation, so it doesn't make
>> sense for the LSB app checker to fail due to no opengl
>> implementation being selected. Hence my suggestion that mesa
>> be made the "default choice" as far as LSB compliance checking
>> is concerned. While this choice may seem rather arbitrary, I
>> don't think too many people would argue against mesa being
>> more or less a defacto standard among linux distributions as
>> "what you get if you don't actively choose something else" for your
>> opengl. ;) 
>>     
> the app checker won't fail an app here, apps are checked against
> what's in the spec, not against distros. the only thing that
> could fail based on knowledge of a specific distribution
> would be the readiness predictor. 
>   

This seems to be a demonstration of appchecker 'intellect'. The data is
ok - libGL is present in all distributions (you can check this in LSB
Navigator), but as it was correctly mentioned, in Ubuntu 10 there are
several alternative packages with libGL. I'm not familiar with that part
of appchecker, but probably it detects that there are several
alternatives and can't decide to which one the library should be mapped.
But I'd say this is not completely correct.

> I wonder if there was some sort of glitch in the captured data,
> because it looks pretty default to me on a 10.04 netbook:
>
> $ aptitude why libgl1-mesa-glx
> i   ubuntu-netbook Depends libgl1-mesa-glx
>   

-- 
Regards,
Denis.