Anssi Hannula wrote:
> Steve Morris wrote:
>  
>> Anssi Hannula wrote:
>>  
>>> Steve Morris wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>> Colin Guthrie wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>      
>>>>> Steve Morris wrote:
>>>>>    
>>>>>      
>>>>>> I have now run ldconfig (I have never had to run this in the past for
>>>>>> dependent processes to pick up the update-alternatives changes, so I
>>>>>> don't understand why I need to now),      
>>>>>>        
>>>>> FYI it's not related to calling update-alternatives generally, but in
>>>>> this case the alternative affects a file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ which
>>>>> in turn affects the library search path. That's why ldconfig is needed
>>>>> in this case.
>>>>>    
>>>>>      
>>>> I don't understand why this is the case. With the module path entries I
>>>> had in Xorg.conf Xorg was loading
>>>> /usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/nvidia-current/libglx.so which is a
>>>> link to libglx.so.173.08 in the same directory. Without these module
>>>> paths Xorg's default functioniality is to load
>>>> /usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/libglx.so with is a link to
>>>> /etc/alternatives/libglx with is a link to
>>>> /usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/nvidia-current/libglx.so which is a
>>>> link to libglx.so.173.08 in the same directory. So how does
>>>> /usr/lib/nvidia-current as specified by ldconfig get into the picture?
>>>>  
>>>>      
>>> libglx.so depends on libGLcore.so.1 and libnvidia-tls.so.1, that are in
>>> /usr/lib/nvidia-current:
>>>
>>> $ ldd /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions/nvidia-current/libglx.so
>>>      linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x00007fffb03fe000)
>>>      libGLcore.so.1 => /usr/lib64/nvidia-current/libGLcore.so.1
>>> (0x00002b64faa41000)
>>>      libnvidia-tls.so.1 =>
>>> /usr/lib64/nvidia-current/tls/libnvidia-tls.so.1 (0x00002b64fb5f9000)
>>>      libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00002b64fb6fa000)
>>>      /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x0000555555554000)
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>    
>> I have one more question before I let this rest. When the ldd is issued
>> against libglx.so is it really listing the dependencies, in this case,
>> of libglx.so.173.08, as I don't understand how a symlink can have
>> dependencies as it is only a pointer isn't it?
>>  
>
> Yes.
>
>  
Thanks Anssi, I'll let you get some rest.

regards,
Steve