[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Nvidia packaging in Fedora (Summary)



On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 11:56 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Ivan Gyurdiev wrote:
> 
> > Why would you split a library off from xorg-x11, but not split the
> > headers?
> 
> As I said previously, the MesaGL .so link and headers are required, else 
> you end up with proprietary-ized binaries that work *only* when the 
> nvidia GL libs are installed.  MesaGL-linked binaries wor on both MesaGL 
> and Nvidia-GL (supposedly) systems.
> 
> I say (supposedly) because I don't have/use NVidia cards myself, but 
> I've heard enough success stories from reputable sources to trust the 
> conclusion.
> 

Allright. I tested this, it works, so I'll admit
you're all right, I'm wrong, and from what I've learned from this
discussion I even know exactly why - it has to do with symlinks,
linker path precedence, and the nvidia script installer, it's not
important.

Conclusions:
=============

- Mesa-libGL can work alongside nvidia-glx, and should be installed
if I am to build against libGL or it doesn't work at all.

- I should stay away from the nvidia installer, use only livna packages,
and rebuild against rawhide.

What needs to be done:
======================

- The -devel package should not install dead links on my system - it 
should require Mesa-libGL. 

- I still say the libGL devel stuff and libGLU should be split from
xorg-x11-devel.

- livna needs to be patched for memory leak bug, and other bugs.
Patches at www.minion.de/files/1.0-6629/. 

- There should be a rawhide-sync'ed livna and extras, and not having
them makes moving packages to extras evil. 

- SElinux strict policy bug with /etc/udev/devices to be fixed...

Anything else I'm missing?

-- 
Ivan Gyurdiev <ivg2 cornell edu>
Cornell University


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]