[RFC] proposal for reorganizing the MESA libraries to simplify replacing them with vendor implementations
jcristau at debian.org
Fri Jul 22 18:30:25 UTC 2011
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 19:11:56 +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> currently there are multiple vendor implementations for
> libGL.so.1/libglx.so and soon there will be vendor implementations for
> libEGL.so.1/libGLES*.so.*, too.
> The GL part is currently being handled by diversions and alternatives,
> and the upcoming EGL part is planning to do this similar.
> Unfortunately the diversions require quite some knowledge about the
> files shipped by the MESA packages.
> Therefore I suggest the following new layout to be used by the MESA
> packages to simplify diversions and alternatives:
So in principle I dislike the idea of making the mesa packages messier
to make the closed driver packages' life easier. One thing that's been
a source of countless bug in the current system is diversions, because
they're evil, and people keep getting them wrong, and users don't
understand/expect them, and all kinds of fun ensues. If mesa were to
not ship the /usr/lib/$arch/libGL.so.1 (and friends) symlink, but
instead ship an alternative itself, would that be enough to put an end
to the diversions? Not that I think alternatives are ideal either, but
if we're going to have to put up with something I'd rather it wasn't
*both* alternatives and diversions.
Not sure what other X people think.
More information about the pkg-nvidia-devel