Michel DÃnzer wrote:
On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 00:56, Ian Romanick wrote:
Does anyone know if either the ATI or Nvidia closed-source drivers support ARB_texture_compression for indirect rendering? If one of them does, that would give us a test bed for the client-side protocol support. When that support is added, we can change the library version to 1.4 (i.e., change from libGL.so.1.2 to libGL.so.1.4, with extra .1.2 and .1.3 symlinks).
Are those symlinks really necessary? Apps should only care about
libGL.so.1 .
It's a debatable point. If an app explicitly links against libGL.so.1.5, then it can expect symbols to statically exist that may not be in libGL.so.1.2. So an app that links against libGL.so.1.5 wouldn't have to use glXGetProcAddress for glBindBuffer or glBeginQuery, but an app linking to a lower version would.
Since libGL is usually built with DT_SONAME (aka -soname) set to "libGL.so.1", the minor version number isn't really significant.
I.e. I may have originally linked my application with libGL.so.1.5 but at runtime the loader will be satisfied with libGL.so.1.2
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 was to make it libGL.bak.so.1.2 or something similar.
-Brian
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
