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

Re: What's your opinion on using alternatives for mesa-libGL(U)?

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> What do you mean with "symlink plan"?
>> The proprietary ati/nvidia drivers currently install that
>> way,

I meant these installers *do* replace symlinks to the files, but afaik they no
longer destroy the lib itself (libGL.so.1.2) as they did very early on, now just
changing the symlink to the other (e.g. libGL.so.100.14.19).  This works but as
you comment does have a problem in that updates destroy the symlinks, something
that cannot be easily prevented.

> ati/nvidia last time I checked replaced the /usr/lib/libGL.so.* files;
> thus if the package mesa-libGL from fedora gets updated it will break,
> as it will overwrite that stuff.

What it really should do is overwrite the updated file but not change the
symlink if it already exists, leaving libGL.so.1 pointing wherever it does.

>> and the packaged versions others have done (livna) are the same.

> Livna doesn't touch /usr/lib/libGL.so.* ; see above for what livna does
> right now.

I stand corrected... I had not looked into how the livna package was handling
this in some time I guess; when they began relocating the libraries it was also
placing the symlinks to the correctly moved library.  It seems that is no longer
being done.

Andrew Farris <lordmorgul gmail com> <ajfarris gmail com>
   gpg 0xC99B1DF3 at pgp.mit.edu

No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
----                                                                       ----

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