Hi Russ,
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 06:47:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
We're attempting to solve this problem by splitting out just the libGL
library into a separate package (libgl1-nvidia) that can be independently
installed. However, that means the diversions of libGL have to move from
Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de writes:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de writes:
But you are right, if your suggestion is to undo this in prerm then
there will be a long delay between undoing and redoing. But if you
fully undo things then
Goswin von Brederlow writes (Re: [pkg-nvidia-devel] Moving diversions between
packages):
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Why not have the new package ship libGL.so.1 to a more specific filename
and create a symlink named libGL.so.1
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Goswin von Brederlow writes (Re: [pkg-nvidia-devel] Moving diversions
between packages):
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Why not have the new package ship libGL.so.1 to a more
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Oh, huh, I hadn't thought of that. But wouldn't this cause the
library to temporarily disappear, which would be contrary to the last
paragraph of Policy 8.1? Am I being too
Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de writes:
But you are right, if your suggestion is to undo this in prerm then
there will be a long delay between undoing and redoing. But if you fully
undo things then programs will still start, they just won't be able to
use hardware accelerated GL and
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de writes:
But you are right, if your suggestion is to undo this in prerm then
there will be a long delay between undoing and redoing. But if you fully
undo things then programs will still start, they just won't be able
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Why not have the new package ship libGL.so.1 to a more specific filename
and create a symlink named libGL.so.1 by hand in its postinst ? That
way you can defer doing the diversion until that part of the
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Why not have the new package ship libGL.so.1 to a more specific filename
and create a symlink named libGL.so.1 by hand in its postinst ? That
way you can defer doing the diversion until that part of the postinst,
by which time the old
moving
diversions between packages is something that we would have run into in
the past and should have a good answer for.
In the absence of (4), I'm currently leaning towards option (1), but I
don't know if I'm missing something that makes that even less robust than
I think it is.
--
Russ Allbery (r
Russ Allbery writes (Moving diversions between packages):
4. Do something else to move the diversions that I haven't thought of and
that would wonderfully solve all of our problems.
Why not have the new package ship libGL.so.1 to a more specific
filename and create a symlink named libGL.so.1
11 matches
Mail list logo
