On 2010-08-25 09:27, Norbert Preining wrote: > Really? I remember faintly when I wrote my intel-nvidia switcher that > libGL.so was sometimes preferred over libGL.so.1. *sometimes* is correct. At that time there were fancy init.d and maintainer scripts that could create random permutations of symlinks. Luckily most of it was dead code.
> What about a program dlopening libGL.so ? I guess that some of the > games might do that. Then they need a dependency on libgl1-mesa-dev | libgl1-dev | libgl1-dev. Eventually somebody would notice that this is BAD. Even NVIDIA realized that dlopening unversioned libsomething.so should be avoided - they fixed libvdpau, they'll drop .so links for their internal libraries/plugins/whatever in 256.xx and for the other cases (e.g. libcuda.so) we have lintian overrides :-) > Are you sure that libGL.so is *never* used at runtime? No. But that's just another way to shoot yourself in the foot. Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
