Games doesent work in Fedora test 3

Panu Matilainen pmatilai at welho.com
Fri Oct 24 13:15:43 UTC 2003


Quoting "Mike A. Harris" <mharris at redhat.com>:

> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> 
> >> apt is telling you it'll gladly uninstall half your system if you 
> >> like to remove Mesa.  RPM would tell you that there is 
> >> dependancies on Mesa from other applications, then you'd say to 
> >> yourself "yes, but I am uninstalling one libGL.so.1 and 
> >> installing an alternative libGL.so.1, so when I'm done all 
> >> dependancies will still be met", then you'd use --nodeps to 
> >> uninstall Mesa, and then install Nvidia, and everything is happy.
> >
> >Apt is telling you the same: "this thing has plenty of dependencies and I'd
> have
> >to remove all this stuff to satisfy dependencies, are you sure you want to
> do
> >this"? Any dependency resolver would do that, if you start using --nodeps
> then
> >you're simply out of depsolver territory.
> 
> I realize that.  What I'm saying is that "rpm -e --nodeps" of a 
> package, removes *that one* package.  Telling apt it is ok to 
> remove the deps too will remove half of your OS.  That's not what 
> someone wants.

Not in this case certainly :) But it is perfectly sane operation in general and
(a properly configured) apt will issue various degrees of warnings (in spirit of
"stand on your hands, back to the keyboard and type this sentence with your toes
to prove you really want this") if you're about to render system unbootable
because the operation you're about to do would remove, say, init.

> 
> >The <vendor-X>-GL.rpm could have obsolete/conflict on the
> >original package and the depsolver-of-your-choice could then
> >cleanly resolve the situation. Until the day cowboys come home
> >and packages are sane.. well, use the right tool for the job:
> >rpm -e --nodeps etc.
> 
> Nvidia should have Conflicts: XFree86-Mesa-libGL in their package 
> ultimately.  That would tell users they must uninstall Mesa 
> first.  Or, they could just not do the bogus file removal 
> trickery at all, and rpm will automatically detect file conflict.  
> Their installer could detect that automatically, and offer to 
> replace the system supplied libGL by uninstalling the 
> XFree86-Mesa-libGL package.

Agreed.

> 
> That would be the cleanest method IMHO, but I'm not sure how easy 
> it would be to convince them to do that.  Their users will have 
> unnecessary problems and difficulties though until they make 
> their installation process and rpm packaging nicer.  I'd even be 
> willing to discuss it with them and offer them advice if I knew 
> who to contact there.

Maybe posting on their support board might get things started?
Oh and it's not like Nvidia is entirely alone in what they're doing, ATI binary
driver rpm's scripts give me the creeps even by looking at them, though
miraculously it actually worked :)

-- 
    - Panu -





More information about the fedora-test-list mailing list