If I can insert another thread at this point, I'm curious about the
requirement that libGL.so be in /usr/lib. Would someone be willing to
summarize the reasoning behind this? I wasn't on the list when this was
decided.
I guess what bothers me about this is:
(a) where a libary lives isn't a binary-compatibility issue, since it
should be in the ld.so path anyway. So this is just about Makefile
convenience.
(b) the draft specification says "The X-specific library direction
(/usr/lib/X11) was also considered, but existing practice on Linux and
other platforms indicates that /usr/lib is preferable." I looked around at
the few systems I have access to, and saw this was indeed the case under
IRIX, but Utah-GLX has always gone into /usr/X11R6, and that makes more
sense to me for accelerated drivers that are part of the X server. What
does Xfree 4.0 currently do?
I'm not asking that this be changed, now that the review period is over,
but I'd like to understand the reasoning behind it. I agree e.g. software
Mesa has traditionally been in /usr/lib, but for X-integrated drivers,
/usr/X11*/lib makes more sense to me, and it's really no more effort to
support that option, since you have to link with the X libs there anyway.
I suppose it's not "no" effort, since I've had to hack numerous configure
scripts that assume Mesa in /usr/lib or /usr/local/lib, but I hope you see
what I mean.
Cheers,
-ralph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
