Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:40:14 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: John Hein <jhein@symmetricom.com> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, x11@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Proposition to make nvidia driver stop overwritting files Message-ID: <20120628044014.GB8166@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20431.28886.146662.868144@gromit.timing.com> References: <20120606131623.GA82148@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20431.28886.146662.868144@gromit.timing.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 09:01:42AM -0600, John Hein wrote: > I agree that the nvidia driver port should install a non-conflicting > libGL (and libGL-nvidia seems fine to me). > > The problem I have with defining libGL.so in libmap.conf is similar to > my previous issue with the "alternatives" approach. It is more > difficult to specify one or the other (nvidia or mesa) flavor of libGL > than, for instance, setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH. I would not say it's more difficult; plus /etc/libmap.conf way is a lot more clear. It does not mean that "alternatives" approach itself is the best we can imagine though. > So libmap.conf can specify different versions of libGL for different > applications (e.g., regular X server vs. virtual X server like Xvnc). This is an interesting point. As much as I hope that a single libGL implementation can suffice all possible regular (non-developer) usage scenarios, real X vs. Xvnc and similar cases must be verified. > So, for reasons of flexibility, I prefer solutions that ultimately > deal with LD_LIBRARY_PATH or user-controllable options (possibly > including application-specific config files). LD_LIBRARY_PATH is just little better than any other dirty hack, and causes a lot of confusion per se. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120628044014.GB8166>