[elrepo] NVIDIA and RHEL 6.5 issue (libglamoregl)

[Phil Perry]

On 02/12/13 14:27, Phil Perry wrote:
> On 30/11/13 19:17, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
>> On 11/30/2013 03:30 PM, Phil Perry wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to hear input from package users on their thoughts on the
>>> above.
>>>
>> ... leaving aside that non-suspecting users will panic seeing
>> "xorg-x11-drivers " as recommended for erasure ( most people have no
>> idea that it's just a meta-package requiring all the drivers ) I am torn
>> between two problems:
>> - I'd rather add a "Conflicts:" in nvidia-X11-drv. Simply recommending
>> the removal of xorg-x11-glamor won't fly for a simple reason: in real
>> life, no one reads the docs :) unless they are forced to
>> - on the other hand, this approach will prohibit simultaneous
>> installation of both NVidia and ATI drivers. Believe it or not, I did
>> have cases ( rare, but they existed) when I relocated a hard disk
>> between a PC with one type of card to one with the other. Or simply
>> replaced the video card. Being able to just change the config file for X
>> and have a functional system was a nice feature.
>>      Whatever the chosen approach is, we will need to add a README in
>> the nvidia-x11-drv package, explaining the issue.
>>
>
> Thanks Wolfy - that is one scenario I had not thought of.
>
> Another to consider is that other Xorg drivers will no doubt in time
> also use Glamor, so adding a Conflicts now will most likely create
> additional yum warnings (conflicts) down the line. Further, if/when the
> Intel driver uses glamor then this would crate issues for those with
> Optimus hardware configurations (both Intel and nvidia hardware present).
>
> Thus I'm now thinking this is not a problem we should be looking to
> solve with (brute force) packaging techniques but is rather an Xorg
> configuration issue that each user must address when configuring Xorg
> for their system.
>
> So at this point I'm minded to do nothing other than document the issue
> and suggest users disable glamor as they see fit, unless anyone can
> convince me otherwise.
>
>

Just bumping this thread as a few more reports have come though in the 
meantime.

I've also just filed a bug with RH to request the config file be made 
%config(noreplace) which will prevent changes being overwritten. If that 
happens we can silently edit the .conf file to prevent libglamoregl from 
loading in the knowledge that future updates to xorg-x11-glamor won't 
overwrite our changes. This would be my ideal solution.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056011

If you are interested in following this issue please subscribe to the 
bug above.

If you have experienced this issue please feel free to add your data 
point to the bug above.

Thanks.