Re: ati radeon 9600 problem
Hi Rob,
> I have found this doesn't work. libGL.so.1.2 is protected from
> libmesa-gl upgrades, but libGL.so.1 gets screwed up:
Interesting...
I was about to reply "works for me" but make a little note on my web
pages that perhaps things weren't as simple as I thought, but I've had a
chance to think about it some more.
I don't fglrx any more (the radeon drivers worked better for me with
xinerama) but this may perhaps explain why I was having some unusual
screen corruption with gtk apps.
FYI, my understanding of library versioning is as follows:
the .so .so.1 .so.1.2 etc will often all point to the same file. If a
program asks for .so it is asking for the latest version of the library.
If it asks for .so.1 it is asking for the latest version of the library
with the particular API defined in version 1. Similarly, .so.1.2 asks
for release 2 of version 1. Etc.
Do you see any side effects from this mess-up of the symlinks?
> I guess the problem is that fglrx packages (via alien) don't have
> libGL.so.1 in them.
Based on my above understanding, I don't believe they should... and
neither to the rpms. The problem appears to be in the post-install
scripts to link the libraries. One solution would be to run (as root)
ldconfig, which would regenerate the symlinks for you.
But at this stage, we are reinventing a wheel... These issues have
(presumably) all been hammered out in Flavio's ATI installer. While I
haven't tried it myself, I keep hearing goo things about it. I consider
the previous ways I described and the ATI instructions to be deprecated
methods for installing the ATI driver. Actually, my view is that the ATI
methods aren't just 'deprecated' for Debian, they're dangerous.
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/flavio.stanchina/debian/fglrx-installer.html
regards
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescott www.nanoNANOnano.net
Reply to: