Skip to content

experimental/ati#462

Closed
MarcWeber wants to merge 1 commit intoNixOS:masterfrom
MarcWeber:submit/ati
Closed

experimental/ati#462
MarcWeber wants to merge 1 commit intoNixOS:masterfrom
MarcWeber:submit/ati

Conversation

@MarcWeber
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

ati-proprietary patches update, eg making blender run without failing due to missing libXext

one one line patch by Jaka Hudoklin

@MarcWeber
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Older open office writer cannot be started due to newer libXext failing with

/nix/store/ky0wl3jvvflnh6zymxiq5rrq0w83pff1-openoffice.org-3.2.1/lib/openoffice/openoffice.org3/program/soffice.bin: /nix/store/vxycd107wjbhcj720hzkw2px7s7kr724-glibc-2.12.2/lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by /run/opengl-driver/lib/libXext.so.6)

So maybe the better fix is to make applications like blender point to libXext instead of globaly providing it using LD_LIBRARY_PATH?

@viric
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

viric commented Apr 15, 2013

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 06:01:39AM -0700, Marc Weber wrote:

Older open office writer cannot be started due to newer libXext failing with

/nix/store/ky0wl3jvvflnh6zymxiq5rrq0w83pff1-openoffice.org-3.2.1/lib/openoffice/openoffice.org3/program/soffice.bin: /nix/store/vxycd107wjbhcj720hzkw2px7s7kr724-glibc-2.12.2/lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by /run/opengl-driver/lib/libXext.so.6)

So maybe the better fix is to make applications like blender point to libXext instead of globaly providing it using LD_LIBRARY_PATH?

I think it's not about providing libXext; I guess it's about GL, or any other
X-related lib in the env (LD_LIBRARY_PATH, QT_PLUGINS_DIR, ...), that brings in
libXext.

I think that's the usual case of a new libGL that requires a same-new libXext, but as
libXext came into the process already by an old libreoffice, the dynamic loader
can't link it.

I just run a new version, when that happens.

@offlinehacker
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Just to let you know, sha256 sum seems like to be not correct anymore, because ati seems like to have changed something in archive, so i made pull request to this pull request.

@domenkozar
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@offlinehacker @MarcWeber is this one still relevant?

@MarcWeber
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Don't know. Without the patch ati did not compile. I didn't change something since - kept using ati unfree.
If the derivations compile (for each kernel) then they are likely to work.

ati-proprietary patches (make it build with linux 3.10)

one one line patch by Jaka Hudoklin
@Phreedom
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

cleaned up, cherry-picked: 57032af

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants