Games doesent work in Fedora test 3

nosp nosp at xades.com
Thu Oct 23 12:44:14 UTC 2003


On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 09:39, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, nosp wrote:
> 
> >> The Nvidia libGL, and the Mesa libGL explicitly conflict with 
> >> each other.  There is no way to cleanly make them coexist 
> >> currently.
> >> 
> >> I think I should make this conflict explicit in the rpm rather 
> >> than users continuously experiencing unknown libGL problems when 
> >> installing Nvidia's drivers.  This would make it much easier for 
> >> people using Nvidia proprietary drivers to use them with less 
> >> troublesome and hard to diagnose conflicts.
> >> 
> >> I'll investigate doing this in our next build.
> >
> >I suppose it's not as simple as letting X install without the Mesa
> >rpm?   I'd gladly not install that if it meant I didn't have to
> >re-install my nvidia drivers after every Mesa upgrade from rawhide.  I
> >must be doing something basic wrong: although the rpm doesn't seem to be
> >a dependency of anything, apt wants to rip X & everything that uses it
> >out if I try to remove the Mesa rpm:
> >
> ># rpm -q --whatrequires XFree86-Mesa-libGL
> >no package requires XFree86-Mesa-libGL
> ># apt-get remove XFree86-Mesa-libGL
> >Reading Package Lists... Done
> >[snip]
> >0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 257 removed and 0 not upgraded.
> >Need to get 0B of archives.
> >After unpacking 994MB disk space will be freed.
> >Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n[o friggin way]
> 
> That just shows you're using a method that is inherently 
> flawed/broken to try to uninstall the package.  I don't recommend 
> using apt for anything ever.  Use yum, or use rpm directly.
> 
Hmm -- I'm not sure that apt is telling me anything that rpm doesn't
tell me; actually apt shows me, quicker, how big an effect my desire to
remove Mesa will have.  Here's what rpm tells me:

---
# rpm --test -e XFree86-Mesa-libGL
error: Failed dependencies:
[snip]
        libGL.so.1 is needed by (installed) xscreensaver-4.13-1
        libGL.so.1 is needed by (installed) xmms-1.2.8-2.p
        libGL.so.1 is needed by (installed) XFree86-libs-4.3.0-40
        libGL.so.1 is needed by (installed) XFree86-tools-4.3.0-40
---

Clearly the dependency of XFree86-{libs,tools} on Mesa is the
"problem."  I disagree that apt is flawed/broken.  But is there a
solution to this?  Probably more relevant in response to your next
point...see below.


> Normally the --nodeps would be strongly advised against for any 
> other command.  In this case the idea is "We know we're 
> uninstalling this package intentionally because we are installing 
> an alternative package which provides the same functionality to 
> the applications that require this one".
Yes but then apt (and, I presume, yum) will tell me I have a broken
package set installed (some packages are installed that depend on a
package I don't have installed).  I can fix this by telling apt (prob.
yum too) to pretend it has the missing Mesa rpm.  I would probably have
to do the same trick to make rpm itself happy.  It's just inconvenient
to tell all the packaging apps (rpm, apt, yum) individually that "yeah
we really have Mesa even though it's not installed."

I don't think any of this helps us with the original question, which was
"how will Mike make the Mesa rpm explicitly conflict with the nvidia
drivers."  I just want to clarify that I think this effort to help
smooth out this issue is very much appreciated by myself and, I imagine,
other binary nvidia users.  So thanks -- my musings were merely a desire
to get more insight into how you would tackle this problem.  The
solution doesn't seem obvious to me because you have to make an rpm
conflict with something that isn't installed by (an) rpm.  How would you
do that?  Could you make the rpm conflict with a file that only the
nvidia installer created?  That would probably be too fragile a method,
right?







More information about the fedora-test-list mailing list