Dear Paul,
thanks for confirming that this is a benign remark from Coot. In the meantime, I
got replies from other users who are seeing the same thing on their systems.

best regards
Savvas


Quoting Paul Emsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 14:35 +0200, Savvas Savvides wrote:
Dear Coot users and developers,
upon starting up Coot-0.3.1 as distributed in the CCP4_v6.0.2 binaries for Red
Hat 8 we get the following:

current_exe_dir is /usr/local/CCP4_v6.0.2/Coot-0.3.1/bin
COOT_PREFIX is /usr/local/CCP4_v6.0.2/Coot-0.3.1
/usr/local/CCP4_v6.0.2/Coot-0.3.1/bin/coot-real: /usr/lib/libGL.so.1: no version
information available (required by
/usr/local/CCP4_v6.0.2/Coot-0.3.1/bin/coot-real)
/usr/local/CCP4_v6.0.2/Coot-0.3.1/bin/coot-real: /usr/lib/libGL.so.1: no version
information available (required by
/usr/local/CCP4_v6.0.2/Coot-0.3.1/lib/libgtkgl.so.5)
/usr/local/CCP4_v6.0.2/Coot-0.3.1/bin/coot-real: /usr/lib/libGL.so.1: no version
information available (required by
/usr/local/CCP4_v6.0.2/Coot-0.3.1/lib/libglut.so.3)

We are running RHEL4 with FX3500 or FX1400 NVIDIA cards and the 9746 nvidia
drivers. I am quite intrigued by these messages (which we also get for our
installation of Coot-0.1.1) while Coot appears to woek fine. Nonetheless, I
cannot help but wonder about any possible loss of functionality.

Dear Savvas Savvides,

These occur as a result of executing:

              glXGetClientString(GDK_DISPLAY(), GLX_VENDOR)
              glXGetClientString(GDK_DISPLAY(), GLX_VERSION)
              glXGetClientString(GDK_DISPLAY(), GLX_EXTENSIONS)

If your libGL does not have that info you get those message.  On a
machine here I get

VENDOR     : NVIDIA Corporation
VERSION    : 1.3
EXTENSIONS : GLX_ARB_get_proc_address GLX_ARB_multisample
GLX_EXT_visual_info GLX_EXT_visual_rating GLX_EXT_import_context
GLX_SGI_video_sync GLX_NV_swap_group GLX_NV_video_out GLX_SGIX_fbconfig
GLX_SGIX_pbuffer GLX_SGI_swap_control GLX_NV_float_buffer
GLX_ARB_fbconfig_float

It helps me debug what is going on sometimes.  Those messages are
harmless, there is no loss of functionality (I am surprised that you
don't get a sensible reply though).

Paul.

Reply via email to