On 2/23/07, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 08:07:21PM +0100, dragoran wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 01:30:03PM -0800, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
> >
> >>This post is an early notification to anyone that repackages the
> >>NVIDIA UNIX Graphics Driver.
> >>
> >>Starting in the Release 100 driver series, NVIDIA will revise the
> >>format of the version number for the UNIX Graphics Driver.
> >>
> >>In the past, the NVIDIA UNIX Graphics Driver version format was
> >>"1.0-XXXX" (e.g., "1.0-9746"). Starting in Release 100, the new
> >>format will be a collection of period-separated fields (e.g.,
> >>"100.17.03").
> >>
> >>The left-most field will indicate the major release series ("Release
> >>100", Release "105", etc.). The second field and optional third or
> >>additional fields will be used for NVIDIA tracking.
> >>
> >>The version number will be a variable number of fields, however it
> >>will consist only of digits and periods.
> >>
> >>This version format change will apply to both the package filenames,
> >>and the names of the libraries.
> >>
> >>Examples:
> >>
> >> /usr/lib/libGLcore.so.100.17
> >>
> >
> >do you intend to do so with libGL.so.1, too? Because that would break
> >a lot of stuff and would render the nvidia-graphics libs not adequate
> >for in-place-substitutes for any system shipped libGL.so.1 anymore.
> >
> >
> libGL.so.1 was a symlink in the old releases so I think its safe to say
> that it will be
> a symlink to libGL.so.100.17
It's not only the symlink that matters, but the SONAME.
DSOs that previously had sonames like "libGL.so.1" would need to
continue with the same soname for compatibility. But the actual file
would be named something like
libGL.so.100.07.23
thanks,
Lonni
