> 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. That alone is already a bug - Mesa GL is not required by any package in all of Fedora, and that's because the nvidia- glx package replaces it. So, requiring me to go install Mesa GL is already a bug. > > 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 > > Possibly a packaging bug... but IMO, not caused by the presence of > Mesa_GL. again, report it: > bugzilla.livna.org 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, and it was still broken since apparently it chose the one in X11R6. Then I redirected that one and it was restoring it on every ldconfig until I got rid of the library itself. Hence, Mesa GL conflicts with nvidia-glx. Btw why is /usr/lib/libGL.so.1 there at all? -- Ivan Gyurdiev <ivg2@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cornell University
