On 03.12.2007 00:43, Andrew Farris wrote: > Stewart Adam wrote: >> I'm wondering what you're opinions/arguments for or against using >> alternatives to symlink the libraries of mesa-libGL and mesa-libGLU. > I think changing anything in regard to libraries should only be done for 'good > reason' and with MAJOR PR to make sure people know. Well, "making it just work" is IMHO a very good reason, because there are some apps out there that only with with LD_PRELOAD hacks (which livna/generally should be avoided for reasons I can't remember right now) because the apps have a rpath to /usr/lib/libGL.so.1 hardcoded, thus the livna tricks with shipping the amd/ati or nvidia libGL in a different path and adjusting the dynamic linker search patch via /etc/ld.so.conf.d doesn't work. > The symlink plan has been > working fine for a long time, with massive amounts of help forums, faqs, etc, > out there for people. What do you mean with "symlink plan"? > The proprietary ati/nvidia drivers currently install that > way, ati/nvidia last time I checked replaced the /usr/lib/libGL.so.* files; thus if the package mesa-libGL from fedora gets updated it will break, as it will overwrite that stuff. > and the packaged versions others have done (livna) are the same. Livna doesn't touch /usr/lib/libGL.so.* ; see above for what livna does right now. Cu knurd -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
