On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 19:11:56 +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > Hi, > > 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. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110722183025.gh32...@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr
