From: Ian R. <id...@us...> - 2004-02-04 17:47:25
|
Michel D=C3=A4nzer wrote: > On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 00:56, Ian Romanick wrote: >=20 >>Does anyone know if either the ATI or Nvidia closed-source drivers=20 >>support ARB_texture_compression for indirect rendering? If one of them= =20 >>does, that would give us a test bed for the client-side protocol=20 >>support. When that support is added, we can change the library version= =20 >>to 1.4 (i.e., change from libGL.so.1.2 to libGL.so.1.4, with extra .1.2= =20 >>and .1.3 symlinks). >=20 > Are those symlinks really necessary? Apps should only care about > libGL.so.1 .=20 It's a debatable point. If an app explicitly links against=20 libGL.so.1.5, then it can expect symbols to statically exist that may=20 not be in libGL.so.1.2. So an app that links against libGL.so.1.5=20 wouldn't have to use glXGetProcAddress for glBindBuffer or glBeginQuery,=20 but an app linking to a lower version would. Do we want to encourage that? That's the debatable part. :) > While we're at it: is there a reason for libGL not having a patchlevel, > e.g. libGL.so.1.2.0? This can cause unpleasant surprises because > ldconfig will consider something like libGL.so.1.2.bak as the higher > patchlevel and change libGL.so.1 to point to that instead of > libGL.so.1.2 . That's a good idea. I've been bitten by that before, but my sollution=20 was to make it libGL.bak.so.1.2 or something similar. |