Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] unclear package collisions in nvidia-drivers-295.20-r1
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:45:13
Message-Id: CAK2H+ecPKKwLR8fCwZrzhbEPy=EZCGkzsdA9iWhURTVnWEBhAA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] unclear package collisions in nvidia-drivers-295.20-r1 by Allan Gottlieb
1 On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Allan Gottlieb <gottlieb@×××.edu> wrote:
2 > On Wed, Feb 15 2012, Mark Knecht wrote:
3 >
4 >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Paul Hartman
5 >> <paul.hartman+gentoo@×××××.com> wrote:
6 >>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Allan Gottlieb <gottlieb@×××.edu> wrote:
7 >>>> Nvidia-drivers fails with package collisions
8 >>>>
9 >>>>  * Detected file collision(s):
10 >>>>  *
11 >>>>  *      /usr/lib32/libnvidia-compiler.so
12 >>>>  *      /usr/lib32/libcuda.so
13 >>>>  *      /usr/lib32/libcuda.so.1
14 >>>>  *      /usr/lib64/libnvidia-compiler.so
15 >>>>  *      /usr/lib64/libcuda.so
16 >>>>  *      /usr/lib64/libcuda.so.1
17 >>>>
18 >>>> But the owner of all these (via a symlink) is the currently installed
19 >>>> version of nvidia-drivers.  For example
20 >>>>
21 >>>>    ajglap gottlieb # equery b /usr/lib32/libcuda.so.1
22 >>>>     * Searching for /usr/lib32/libcuda.so.1 ...
23 >>>>    x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-290.10-r1 (/usr/lib32/OpenCL/vendors/nvidia/libcuda.so.290.10)
24 >>>>
25 >>>>    ajglap gottlieb # ls -l !$
26 >>>>    ls -l /usr/lib32/libcuda.so.1
27 >>>>    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 Feb 13 19:29 /usr/lib32/libcuda.so.1 -> OpenCL/vendors/nvidia/libcuda.so.290.10
28 >>>>
29 >>>> So I don't really see the collision.  Is the correct procedure
30 >>>>
31 >>>> 1.  Copy the 12 files (both ends of the 6 links) someplace else
32 >>>> 2.  Get out of X
33 >>>> 3.  Try the emerge again
34 >>>>
35 >>>> thanks,
36 >>>> allan
37 >>>
38 >>> Are the collisions with owned files, or just files that it doesn't
39 >>> know about? i use protect-owned so it will overwrite any unknown
40 >>> files, but abort on files owned by another known installed package. If
41 >>> portage does not report them as owned by another package I think it's
42 >>> usually safe to override (unless you have been installing things
43 >>> outside of portage).
44 >>>
45 >>
46 >> It may be related to all the OpenCL stuff that was just included in
47 >> this last set of nvidia-driver packages. Possibly the ebuild hasn't
48 >> handled the new stuff correctly?
49 >>
50 >> - Mark
51 >
52 > Perhaps.  All the files are links to files with OpenCL in the path.
53 >
54 > But I am still unsure what to do.
55 > I mentioned a three step procedure above.
56 > Perhaps best is to do nothing and hope -r2 will come along and
57 > install cleanly.
58 > Toward that end should I file a bug at bugs.gentoo.org?
59 >
60 > allan
61 >
62
63 I'm emerging the package here to investigate whether it's a global
64 issue or maybe just one you are seeing. I'll get back to you on that.
65
66 I think if it was me (and it may be in 10 minutes...) then I'd drop
67 into the console, emerge -C nvidia-drivers, probably run
68 revdep-rebuild or something to look for files that aren't owned,
69 remove them by hand, and then emerge nvidia-drivers back in.
70
71 - Mark

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] unclear package collisions in nvidia-drivers-295.20-r1 Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com>