| 1 |
On Saturday 31 October 2009 23:43:21 Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 10/31/2009 11:07 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On Saturday 31 October 2009 22:03:04 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>>> For instance, you might be running 2.6.31-r4 and also have 2.6.31-r3 |
| 6 |
> >>>> installed. To install nvidia-drivers, you must build it twice - |
| 7 |
> >>>> against each kernel you want to use it with (nvidia-drivers builds and |
| 8 |
> >>>> installs a |
| 9 |
> >>>> kernel driver into /lib/modules/<kernel version>) |
| 10 |
> >>> |
| 11 |
> >>> It's a bit more obfuscated than that. Maybe nvidia-drivers work |
| 12 |
> >>> different, but ati-drivers will build against /usr/src/linux but |
| 13 |
> >>> install the actual modules in /lib/modules/running_kernel. If |
| 14 |
> >>> /usr/src/linux doesn't point to the running kernel, the modules will be |
| 15 |
> >>> installed in the wrong place. |
| 16 |
> >> |
| 17 |
> >> That is just so mind-bogglingly absurdly stupid I doubt if ATI should |
| 18 |
> >> even be |
| 19 |
> >> allowed near a computer.... |
| 20 |
> >> |
| 21 |
> >> Compiling code never depends on something running, it only depends on |
| 22 |
> >> things |
| 23 |
> >> being present that can be linked against. |
| 24 |
> >> |
| 25 |
> >> Thanks for reminding me why I insist on NVidia GPUs, I'd forgotten. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> > This isn't ATI's installer. It's the ebuild that does this. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> And from deep memory it seems like there were other packages that |
| 30 |
> operated this way 8-10 years ago. I know in 1999 I had to be very |
| 31 |
> careful about where the linux link pointed, and while it's not as |
| 32 |
> necessary today to do so i'm still quite careful. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> I use the ATI drivers on my AMD64 machine. I think I've always found |
| 35 |
> that I needed to emerge fglrx after the new kernel had been booted but |
| 36 |
> never understood why. This email is helpful. It seems to me that if it |
| 37 |
> is the ebuild that's doing this is needs to be fixed. If I understand |
| 38 |
> correctly I could be building for 2.6.31 but installing in 2.6.29? |
| 39 |
> That's not right... |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
I agree, the ebuild should be fixed. I can't think of any valid reason for |
| 42 |
that behaviour. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives