<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Mesa 13+ breaks Xvnc (and similar X servers)" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99987#c15">Comment # 15</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Mesa 13+ breaks Xvnc (and similar X servers)" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99987">bug 99987</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:devurandom@gmx.net" title="Dennis Schridde <devurandom@gmx.net>"> Dennis Schridde</a> <pre>(In reply to Pierre Ossman from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=99987#c14">comment #14</a>) > b) If it is indeed a fallback, why is that needed? I.e. why isn't Mesa being > chosen? It does not seem robust and future proof to rely on a fallback > mechanism. Which leads to... Because libglvnd tries to be vendor neutral (i.e. not tied to either Mesa nor Nvidia) and there might be other vendors providing a software / indirect rendering implementation. Maybe not now and on current Linux distributions, but e.g. on another OS or in the future. > c) What happens when both Mesa and NVIDIA wants to install the fallback > symlink? It sounds like things will just stop working, getting us right back > to the situation that GLVND was supposed to solve. I was wondering about the same thing. The env-var solution actually seems superior to having a file collision between different packages. Even a config file might be better than a symlink. But Hans is already working on this: <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413579#57">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413579#57</a> > I will prepare an update to add this to the Fedora mesa pkgs, but I > need to coordinate this with the rpmfusion packages, since those currently add > such a symlink to the nvidia libGLX.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>