Nvidia packaging for Fedora

[Ivan Gyurdiev]

> > 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 at cornell.edu>
Cornell University