On Tue, 2018-11-06 at 13:29 +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 11:03:11PM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > > > By this argument, surely there should not be a libGL.so on the > > > system > > > at all? > > > > The .so file is for use by the linker. Not for runtime. > > Dear Andreas, > > Thanks for the speedy response! Ah, I hadn't realised > this. That > makes some sense. > > > > And it also does not address the serious issue that libGL.so > > > points to a different library from libGL.so.1. > > > > > > The discussions online show that this is an issue which has been > > > around for years. The solution is simple. > > > > Does your testcase run under bumblebee? > > I don't know; I could try when I'm next at my desktop. I don't have > bumblebee installed (it seems to be intended for laptops). > > Another thing I've thought of doing is wrapping the dlopen library > call to trace all calls to hopefully locate the source of the issue. > > But I still don't understand why you would not divert libGL.so when > libGL.so.1 is being diverted - it doesn't make any sense to me. > > Best wishes, > > Julian
https://salsa.debian.org/nvidia-team/glx-alternatives/blob/master/debian/glx-diversions.README.Debian#L89 -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
