What's your opinion on using alternatives for mesa-libGL(U)?

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

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