On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 11:56 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > Ivan Gyurdiev wrote: > > > Why would you split a library off from xorg-x11, but not split the > > headers? > > As I said previously, the MesaGL .so link and headers are required, else > you end up with proprietary-ized binaries that work *only* when the > nvidia GL libs are installed. MesaGL-linked binaries wor on both MesaGL > and Nvidia-GL (supposedly) systems. > > I say (supposedly) because I don't have/use NVidia cards myself, but > I've heard enough success stories from reputable sources to trust the > conclusion. I am installing xorg-x11-devel and Mesa-libGL right now to test this "supposedly," because I am almost positive something will break. Will let you know in 10 mins. In the mean time, why is xorg-x11-devel not requiring xorg-x11-Mesa- libGL if your claim that it's required is true. If it required the Mesa package it wouldn't be able to install a dead link without consequence. Every other -devel package on Fedora seems to require the parent package. [phantom@cobra ~]$ rpm -q libgtop2-devel --requires glib2-devel >= 2.0.1 libgtop2 = 2.8.0 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [phantom@cobra ~]$ rpm -q libpng-devel --requires /bin/sh libpng = 2:1.2.8 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 zlib-devel [phantom@cobra ~]$ rpm -q libmng-devel --requires libjpeg-devel libmng = 1.0.8 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [phantom@cobra ~]$ -- Ivan Gyurdiev <ivg2@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cornell University
