> Furthermore the driver distributed is not patched for well-known
> with the patches here:
What are these patches for?
To tell you the truth I am not entirely sure about most of them.
However I know the 18k one fixes a memory leak that improves
performance. I can find links for most of those patches on the
Nvidia forums posted by Zander, which I believe is the Nvidia Linux
Mixing the rpms from livna and the scipt installer is not and will
be supported by livna.org
That's obvious. I suppose if the driver was patched I could
rebuild the package like you say and it would be easier.
> - Livna.org
sync-ed against Rawhide.
Won't happen anytime soon, but see above for a very simple fix.
This discussion was about pros and cons of extras.
That's why I brought this up. This is one great disavantage of
extras and livna for me compared to Core.
> - updated xorg-x11 packaging to separate the Mesa GL stuff
> - some sort of alternatives system or post-install scripts to
> find correct provider of libGL.so.1
This already works with the rpms.
It does not. That should have been libGL.so.
See my other mail for details.
> That doesn't include the SElinux bug in the strict policy
> udev needs to restorecon devices from /usr/etc/devices. I've filed
> this in bugzilla and I assume it's being resolved.
If you don't uninstall the Mesa libGL/libGLU rpms, you can compile
against those. If you want Nvidia-specific features,
use -L/usr/lib/nvidia -I/usr/include/nvidia.
The Mesa libGL rpms conflict with the Nvidia ones.
If they are not uninstalled I get graphical glitches and performance
problems. The GL client and server versions differ. I suppose that's
because they're both in the linker path
Ivan Gyurdiev <ivg2(a)cornell.edu>