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

Re: Nvidia packaging for Fedora



> nvidia should *not* be the provider for libGL.so, but MesaGL.  Else you 
> end up with binaries that work only on/for nvidia users.

You fail to see that libGL.so is a dead link on systems which don't have
Mesa GL installed.  That alone is already a bug - Mesa GL is not
required by any package in all of Fedora, and that's because the nvidia-
glx package replaces it.

So, requiring me to go install Mesa GL is already a bug. 


> > If they are not uninstalled I get graphical glitches and performance
> > problems. The GL client and server versions differ. I suppose that's
> > because they're both in the linker path
> 
> Possibly a packaging bug... but IMO, not caused by the presence of 
> Mesa_GL.   again, report it:
> bugzilla.livna.org

rpm -ql xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL* -p

/usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1
/usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.2
/usr/lib/libGL.so.1

How is this supposed to work?
/usr/lib/libGL.so.1 takes precedence over the 
nvidia folder with the same lib. 

Even if it didn't, relying on which libGL.so.1 came first
seems like a very fragile setup. I recall redirecting that link,
and it was still broken since apparently it chose the one in X11R6.
Then I redirected that one and it was restoring it on every ldconfig
until I got rid of the library itself.

Hence, Mesa GL conflicts with nvidia-glx.

Btw why is /usr/lib/libGL.so.1 there at all?
-- 
Ivan Gyurdiev <ivg2 cornell edu>
Cornell University


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