Hi Russ,
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 06:47:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> We're attempting to solve this problem by splitting out just the libGL
> library into a separate package (libgl1-nvidia) that can be independently
> installed. However, that means the diversions of libGL have to move from
>
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> Goswin von Brederlow writes:
>>> But you are right, if your suggestion is to undo this in prerm then
>>> there will be a long delay between undoing and redoing. But if you
>>> fully undo things then programs will still start, they just won'
Russ Allbery writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow writes:
>
>> But you are right, if your suggestion is to undo this in prerm then
>> there will be a long delay between undoing and redoing. But if you fully
>> undo things then programs will still start, they just won't be able to
>> use hardware accel
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
> But you are right, if your suggestion is to undo this in prerm then
> there will be a long delay between undoing and redoing. But if you fully
> undo things then programs will still start, they just won't be able to
> use hardware accelerated GL and fallback to soft
Ian Jackson writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow writes:
>> Russ Allbery writes:
>>> Oh, huh, I hadn't thought of that. But wouldn't this cause the
>>> library to temporarily disappear, which would be contrary to the last
>>> paragraph of Policy 8.1? Am I being too conservative about that?
> Maybe.
Ian Jackson writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: [pkg-nvidia-devel] Moving diversions
> between packages"):
>> Russ Allbery writes:
>> > Ian Jackson writes:
>> > > Why not have the new package ship libGL.so.1 to a more specific filename
>
Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: [pkg-nvidia-devel] Moving diversions between
packages"):
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > Ian Jackson writes:
> > > Why not have the new package ship libGL.so.1 to a more specific filename
> > > and create a symlink named libGL
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
>> Why not have the new package ship libGL.so.1 to a more specific filename
>> and create a symlink named libGL.so.1 by hand in its postinst ? That
>> way you can defer doing the diversion until that part of the postinst,
>> by which time the old pac
Ian Jackson writes:
> Why not have the new package ship libGL.so.1 to a more specific filename
> and create a symlink named libGL.so.1 by hand in its postinst ? That
> way you can defer doing the diversion until that part of the postinst,
> by which time the old package and its diversion are gon
Russ Allbery writes ("Moving diversions between packages"):
> 4. Do something else to move the diversions that I haven't thought of and
>that would wonderfully solve all of our problems.
Why not have the new package ship libGL.so.1 to a more specific
filename and c
correctly. I'm an "always build in a chroot" person,
but we know that we have people who want to build Debian packages that
use GL even though the NVIDIA drivers are installed.
4. Do something else to move the diversions that I haven't thought of and
that would wonderfully
11 matches
Mail list logo
