Re: Nvidia packaging for Fedora

[Rex Dieter <rdieter math unl edu>]

Ivan Gyurdiev wrote:
> > 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.  

But Mesa GL *should* be installed if you intend to compile anything. 
That's the point.

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

I fail to see how/why requiring MesaGL to compile anything is a bug.


> 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,

The nvidia folder is supposed to take precedence at runtime.  That is 
how it is *supposed* to work.

Fragile or not, it works for most folks, and is certainly better than 
what the nvidia installer does.


-- Rex