> > Furthermore the driver distributed is not patched for well-known bugs > > with the patches here: > > http://www.minion.de/files/1.0-6629/ > > What are these patches for? To tell you the truth I am not entirely sure about most of them. However I know the 18k one fixes a memory leak that improves performance. I can find links for most of those patches on the Nvidia forums posted by Zander, which I believe is the Nvidia Linux contact there. > Mixing the rpms from livna and the scipt installer is not and will never > be supported by livna.org. That's obvious. I suppose if the driver was patched I could rebuild the package like you say and it would be easier. > > - Livna.org sync-ed against Rawhide. > > Won't happen anytime soon, but see above for a very simple fix. This discussion was about pros and cons of extras. That's why I brought this up. This is one great disavantage of extras and livna for me compared to Core. > > - updated xorg-x11 packaging to separate the Mesa GL stuff > > - some sort of alternatives system or post-install scripts to > > find correct provider of libGL.so.1 > > This already works with the rpms. It does not. That should have been libGL.so. See my other mail for details. > > That doesn't include the SElinux bug in the strict policy where > > udev needs to restorecon devices from /usr/etc/devices. I've filed > > this in bugzilla and I assume it's being resolved. > > bz#? 145041 > > If you don't uninstall the Mesa libGL/libGLU rpms, you can compile > against those. If you want Nvidia-specific features, > use -L/usr/lib/nvidia -I/usr/include/nvidia. The Mesa libGL rpms conflict with the Nvidia ones. 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 -- Ivan Gyurdiev <ivg2@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cornell University
