From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 1 15:11:44 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4853C106566B; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 15:11:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Received: from eastrmfepo202.cox.net (eastrmfepo202.cox.net [68.230.241.217]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D29198FC17; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 15:11:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmfepo202.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20110901151143.TDZQ32466.eastrmfepo202.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net>; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 11:11:43 -0400 Received: from serene.no-ip.org ([98.164.83.25]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id TTBi1h00Z0YnB6A02TBivd; Thu, 01 Sep 2011 11:11:43 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020205.4E5FA0AF.002B,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=5AHg1zS6fKBk64vkGL/stHpTKznySuNzRq0QOAs0BF0= c=1 sm=1 a=gedi4w8z0VAA:10 a=G8Uczd0VNMoA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=2vO5UZG1h46htWAnE/rx2g==:17 a=kviXuzpPAAAA:8 a=4m7mjnN_QDKCLyoXXTgA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=4vB-4DCPJfMA:10 a=2vO5UZG1h46htWAnE/rx2g==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Received: from cox.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by serene.no-ip.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p81FBfVd096359; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:11:41 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:11:36 -0500 From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" To: Oliver Fromme Message-ID: <20110901101136.7ca784ec@cox.net> In-Reply-To: <201109011445.p81EjeBj003730@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <20110822232210.11df7099@cox.net> <201109011445.p81EjeBj003730@lurza.secnetix.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.10 (GTK+ 2.24.5; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: danfe@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Luca Pizzamiglio Subject: Re: How to deal with conflict between graphics/libGL and x11/nvidia-driver? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 15:11:44 -0000 On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 16:45:41 +0200 (CEST) Oliver Fromme wrote: > Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: > > Does anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with the conflict > > between the ports libGL and nvidia-driver? > > > > Both install their own version of /usr/local/lib/libGL.so.1. > > Obviously, if you're using the nvidia driver, you need nvidia's > > version and not libGL's version, but many other ports also depend > > on libGL. > > > > I'm not quite sure how to deal with this so that any portupgrades, > > etc. won't keep trampling over my nvidia GL libraries. I was > > going to use an ALT_PKGDEP for portupgrade, but the problem is > > that libGL also installs some include files that nvidia-driver > > does not, so that's not a sufficient solution. > > Maybe it would be helpful to add libGL as a dependency to > the nvidia-driver port. That means, when the libGL port > is updated, the nvidia-driver port will be rebuilt, too, > because it depends on the libGL port, which means that > the nvidia-driver's library will always override the one > installed by the libGL port. > > Best regards > Oliver Excellent idea! Hadn't thought of that. That also obviates the need for a new "AFFECTS" variable in ports that was discussed recently by myself and a few others. I'll Cc: this on to the nvidia-driver maintainer. Thanks, Conrad -- Conrad J. Sabatier conrads@cox.net