On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:37:17 -0500, Paul Iadonisi <pri.rhl3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Take a deep breath, Jeff. ;-) Though I do think you are mostly > right, you'll note that 'gslink@xxxxxxx' did, in fact, imply in his > original post that it is nVidia that needs to provide an updated driver. > Though I would be curious as to what the problem actually is, the > implication didn't seem to be that the glibc update was the source of > the problem, but rather that nVidia is lagging again. Scapegoating nVidia whenever an individual sees a video related problem on their system, while fun to do, isn't particularly constructive. Other than's gslink's naked claim that the problem is widespread and everyone running nvidia drivers on the list should avoid the glibc updates what evidence is there that there is a widespread problem? Did gslink cite a discusion where nvidia developers have ackownledged a problem? Did gslink cite an on-going discussion among nvidia hardware owners where problems have been cross-checked and confirmed on multiple systems? There isn't much supporting evidence to suggest this is a problem with the nvidia libraries or kernel drivers or even a problem associated with the glibc update. There could be a number of problems that gslink is misintepreting as being something inside the nvidia drivers. I think gslink's initial post is classic FUD, and i strongly challenge the call for avoiding the glibc update that gslink made, without more supporting evidence beyond gslink's personal experience. His comment about rpm saying files are missing.. speaks of deeper issues wholely unrelated to how the nvidia drivers and libraries actually operate. More likely than not he used nvidia's installer instead of the nvidia rpms and forced the removal of the xorg-Mesa-libGL which provides libGL.so.1 thus breaking the rpm dependancy chain for ANY application that requires libGL.so.1. Sadly gslink hasn't provided us with any specifics as to the exact errors he's seeing, so I can't be sure thats the problem. We can't be sure of anything really other thank gslink feels that avoiding the glibc update is the correct course of action. If avoiding the glibc update is something nvidia developers have stated as a work-around to a widespread problem i demand the citation to such an annoucement. Telling other users to avoid updating glibc is pretty extreme in my opinion, and I want confirmation from multiple sources that avoiding the glibc update is the prefered workaround... otherwise this is at best unconstructive and at worst dangerous advice. Luckily that glibc update wasn't marked as a security update , if it were, I'd actually be angry at the suggestion that people shouldn't update it. As it stands, im just slightly annoyed. -jef"There is a vast difference between asking for others to confirm a problem that you are seeing and making a bold proclamation of a solution to a widespread problem which you assume exists."spaleta