From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 14 03:53:10 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9875F16A4C0 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 03:53:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 286B543F3F for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 03:53:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@witchspace.com) Received: from witchspace.com ([80.3.251.242]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.37 201-229-121-137-20020806) with SMTP id <20030914105306.PDLJ1981.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@witchspace.com> for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:53:06 +0100 Received: (qmail 15747 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2003 10:53:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO webmail.witchspace.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost.witchspace.com with SMTP; 14 Sep 2003 10:53:40 -0000 Received: from 192.168.0.1 (SquirrelMail authenticated user jon) by webmail.witchspace.com with HTTP; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:53:40 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <1379.192.168.0.1.1063536820.squirrel@webmail.witchspace.com> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:53:40 +0100 (BST) From: jon@witchspace.com To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Subject: Mesa verses Mesa3? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:53:10 -0000 Hiya I was just wondering why there are separate ports for mesagl and Mesa3... Ports requiring Mesa all seem to want Mesa3, is there any reason to prefer that over the other? Cheers, --Jon http://www.witchspace.com