FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-15-2010, 09:47 PM
Jonathan Ryshpan
 
Default Nvidia proprietary drivers vs. Fedora xorg packages

If you use the Nvidia proprietary drivers (as I do) be aware that
installing some of the xorg*.rpm packages can break these drivers in
subtle ways. In particular, xorg-x11-server-Xorg.*.rpm contains the
file /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions/libglx.so, which conflicts with
a file with the same name installed by the Nvidia driver package
NVIDIA-Linux-x86_64-256.44.run (and probably all the rest). This
prevents googleearth from running: it produces an error box containing
"Google Earth is unable to identify your graphics card..."

===> Bottom Line <===
If you are using the Nvidia drivers and start having trouble with your
graphics system, consider reinstalling the Nvidia drivers.

jon


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 08-15-2010, 09:56 PM
Todd Zullinger
 
Default Nvidia proprietary drivers vs. Fedora xorg packages

Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> If you use the Nvidia proprietary drivers (as I do) be aware that
> installing some of the xorg*.rpm packages can break these drivers in
> subtle ways. In particular, xorg-x11-server-Xorg.*.rpm contains the
> file /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions/libglx.so, which conflicts
> with a file with the same name installed by the Nvidia driver
> package NVIDIA-Linux-x86_64-256.44.run (and probably all the rest).

This is a know problem with the Nvidia install scripts. It is their
scriptss that are broken. They should not be overwriting system
files.

> ===> Bottom Line <===
> If you are using the Nvidia drivers and start having trouble with your
> graphics system, consider reinstalling the Nvidia drivers.

On the contrary, consider install nvidia drivers via the RPM Fusion
packages, which don't have these problems. Also consider filing a
ticket with the Nvidia folks, since they really ought to fix this (not
that I'd hold my breath).

--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Years ago fairy tales all began with "Once upon a time...", now we
know they all begin with, "If I am elected..."
-- Carolyn Warner

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 08-16-2010, 12:12 AM
Jonathan Ryshpan
 
Default Nvidia proprietary drivers vs. Fedora xorg packages

On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 17:56 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > If you use the Nvidia proprietary drivers (as I do) be aware that
> > installing some of the xorg*.rpm packages can break these drivers in
> > subtle ways. In particular, xorg-x11-server-Xorg.*.rpm contains the
> > file /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions/libglx.so, which conflicts
> > with a file with the same name installed by the Nvidia driver
> > package NVIDIA-Linux-x86_64-256.44.run (and probably all the rest).
>
> This is a know problem with the Nvidia install scripts. It is their
> scripts that are broken. They should not be overwriting system
> files.
>
> > ===> Bottom Line <===
> > If you are using the Nvidia drivers and start having trouble with your
> > graphics system, consider reinstalling the Nvidia drivers.
>
> On the contrary, consider install nvidia drivers via the RPM Fusion
> packages, which don't have these problems. Also consider filing a
> ticket with the Nvidia folks, since they really ought to fix this (not
> that I'd hold my breath).

If only...

I used the kmod/akmod happily for some time, till google earth stopped
working under the kmod/akmod driver. (The open source (nouveau) driver,
which would have been preferable doesn't support the 3D hardware which
google earth needs to run at a tolerable speed.) But the kmod/akmod
drivers fell behind the nvidia releases and were not brought up to date
for some time, despite some gentle prodding, so I decided to switch to
the proprietary drivers.

kmod/akmod at the rpmfusion repo are now at least two releases behind
Nvidia at version 195.36.24, while Nvidia has released 256.35 and
256.44. So it looks like I'll have to stay with the fully proprietary
drivers.

I fear that there are technical reasons why Nvidia is releasing files
with conflicting names. Can you give a reason why this is not so?

jon



--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 08-16-2010, 12:35 AM
Bruno Wolff III
 
Default Nvidia proprietary drivers vs. Fedora xorg packages

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 17:12:13 -0700,
Jonathan Ryshpan <jonrysh@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> I used the kmod/akmod happily for some time, till google earth stopped
> working under the kmod/akmod driver. (The open source (nouveau) driver,
> which would have been preferable doesn't support the 3D hardware which
> google earth needs to run at a tolerable speed.) But the kmod/akmod
> drivers fell behind the nvidia releases and were not brought up to date
> for some time, despite some gentle prodding, so I decided to switch to
> the proprietary drivers.

Nouveau does support limited 3D now. You can install
mesa-dri-drivers-experimental to see if it works well enough for your needs.
There are bugs and the 3D support is pretty limited. So there is a good
chance it still isn't far enough along to support your needs.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 08-16-2010, 04:03 AM
Tim
 
Default Nvidia proprietary drivers vs. Fedora xorg packages

On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 17:12 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> I fear that there are technical reasons why Nvidia is releasing files
> with conflicting names.

Considering that others have repackaged the same drivers, so they
install without stuffing up the original system files, the answer would
probably be that there is no good reason, just laziness on their behalf.

If they're making the drivers, they can make it ask for files with
different file paths, or file names, and leave the original ones alone.

--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.



--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 08-16-2010, 12:38 PM
Marko Vojinovic
 
Default Nvidia proprietary drivers vs. Fedora xorg packages

On Monday, August 16, 2010 05:03:54 Tim wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 17:12 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > I fear that there are technical reasons why Nvidia is releasing files
> > with conflicting names.
>
> Considering that others have repackaged the same drivers, so they
> install without stuffing up the original system files, the answer would
> probably be that there is no good reason, just laziness on their behalf.
>
> If they're making the drivers, they can make it ask for files with
> different file paths, or file names, and leave the original ones alone.

The nVidia folks do not package the drivers just for Fedora, but are instead
trying to cover all Linux flavors with one single automated .bin install
script. My guess is that conflicting file names exist across various distros,
and that it is impossible to package the blob installation for all of them
simultaneously, without overwriting some system files (on some distros at
least).

Rpmfusion folks take the whole thing apart and customize it for Fedora
specifically. My guess is that, say, akmod from rpmfusion would break horribly
if one tries to install it to OpenSuSE or some other rpm-based Linux flavor.

It is already fortunate that nVidia folks are providing the .bin that can
actually be repackaged by third parties to fit a particular distro. Asking for
more might be too much, IMHO.

Best, :-)
Marko

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 08-16-2010, 02:24 PM
Tim
 
Default Nvidia proprietary drivers vs. Fedora xorg packages

Tim:
>> Considering that others have repackaged the same drivers, so they
>> install without stuffing up the original system files, the answer
>> would probably be that there is no good reason, just laziness on
>> their behalf.
>>
>> If they're making the drivers, they can make it ask for files with
>> different file paths, or file names, and leave the original ones
>> alone.

Marko Vojinovic:
> The nVidia folks do not package the drivers just for Fedora, but are
> instead trying to cover all Linux flavors with one single
> automated .bin install script.

If they were putting all their own files in /usr/share/nvidia (or
something similar), and making their driver look in there, I might give
them the benefit of the doubt. But it would appear, from other's prior
diagnosis of their installations, that they just stomp all over Xorg
files, with gay abandon.

If a driver calls for some standard system file in a standard location,
then it should use what's there. If it wants something different, then
it should call something different, and from a unique filepath.

It just seems like just more crap Windows-like programming. Where
someone just piles crap all over the place, because all they care about
is whether their thing does its trick. Not what other damage it
creates.

It's perfectly possible, with hardware that has the bits you need, and
when drivers aren't shovelled in without due care, to run more than one
graphics card on a computer. But all it takes is one I-don't-care-less
programmer to stuff that up.

--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.



--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 08-16-2010, 05:17 PM
Mikkel
 
Default Nvidia proprietary drivers vs. Fedora xorg packages

On 08/16/2010 07:38 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Monday, August 16, 2010 05:03:54 Tim wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 17:12 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>>> I fear that there are technical reasons why Nvidia is releasing files
>>> with conflicting names.
>>
>> Considering that others have repackaged the same drivers, so they
>> install without stuffing up the original system files, the answer would
>> probably be that there is no good reason, just laziness on their behalf.
>>
>> If they're making the drivers, they can make it ask for files with
>> different file paths, or file names, and leave the original ones alone.
>
> The nVidia folks do not package the drivers just for Fedora, but are instead
> trying to cover all Linux flavors with one single automated .bin install
> script. My guess is that conflicting file names exist across various distros,
> and that it is impossible to package the blob installation for all of them
> simultaneously, without overwriting some system files (on some distros at
> least).
>
> Rpmfusion folks take the whole thing apart and customize it for Fedora
> specifically. My guess is that, say, akmod from rpmfusion would break horribly
> if one tries to install it to OpenSuSE or some other rpm-based Linux flavor.
>
> It is already fortunate that nVidia folks are providing the .bin that can
> actually be repackaged by third parties to fit a particular distro. Asking for
> more might be too much, IMHO.
>
> Best, :-)
> Marko
>
Considering the the location of the Xorg files is fairly standard
across distributions, and just about every one uses Xorg to provide
X, that argument doesn't hold water. There is even a standard plact
to put their files where they will not stomp on Xorg, no matter
where it is located. That is what the /opt directory tree is fore.

Mikkel
--

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 08-17-2010, 03:01 AM
john wendel
 
Default Nvidia proprietary drivers vs. Fedora xorg packages

On 08/16/2010 10:17 AM, Mikkel wrote:
> On 08/16/2010 07:38 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
>> On Monday, August 16, 2010 05:03:54 Tim wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 17:12 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>>>> I fear that there are technical reasons why Nvidia is releasing files
>>>> with conflicting names.
>>>
>>> Considering that others have repackaged the same drivers, so they
>>> install without stuffing up the original system files, the answer would
>>> probably be that there is no good reason, just laziness on their behalf.
>>>
>>> If they're making the drivers, they can make it ask for files with
>>> different file paths, or file names, and leave the original ones alone.
>>
>> The nVidia folks do not package the drivers just for Fedora, but are instead
>> trying to cover all Linux flavors with one single automated .bin install
>> script. My guess is that conflicting file names exist across various distros,
>> and that it is impossible to package the blob installation for all of them
>> simultaneously, without overwriting some system files (on some distros at
>> least).
>>
>> Rpmfusion folks take the whole thing apart and customize it for Fedora
>> specifically. My guess is that, say, akmod from rpmfusion would break horribly
>> if one tries to install it to OpenSuSE or some other rpm-based Linux flavor.
>>
>> It is already fortunate that nVidia folks are providing the .bin that can
>> actually be repackaged by third parties to fit a particular distro. Asking for
>> more might be too much, IMHO.
>>
>> Best, :-)
>> Marko
>>
> Considering the the location of the Xorg files is fairly standard
> across distributions, and just about every one uses Xorg to provide
> X, that argument doesn't hold water. There is even a standard plact
> to put their files where they will not stomp on Xorg, no matter
> where it is located. That is what the /opt directory tree is fore.
>
> Mikkel
>

I should just keep quiet, but anyhow ...

I just installed the latest evil Nvidia driver, which works great on my
F11 box, and nothing is broken. I just did 'ls -ltr' in all the /usr
directories, and I don't see anything "stomped" on except for some
include files. All the files installed by the Nvidia installer (except
the include files) have "nvidia" and/or a version number in their name.
Nvidia replaces libGL (and friends), but the files are properly
versioned, and the original files are still there.

I really don't understand the "problem". Is it practical or philosophical?

Regards,

John


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 08-17-2010, 09:35 AM
Tim
 
Default Nvidia proprietary drivers vs. Fedora xorg packages

On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 20:01 -0700, john wendel wrote:
> I should just keep quiet, but anyhow ...

Yes, why tempt fate, when you can... ;-)

> I just installed the latest evil Nvidia driver, which works great on
> my F11 box, and nothing is broken. I just did 'ls -ltr' in all
> the /usr directories, and I don't see anything "stomped" on except for
> some include files. All the files installed by the Nvidia installer
> (except the include files) have "nvidia" and/or a version number in
> their name. Nvidia replaces libGL (and friends), but the files are
> properly versioned, and the original files are still there.

If they have stopped stomping on original files, then it's news to us.
Because the have for years.

> I really don't understand the "problem". Is it practical or
> philosophical?

You could start by reading:
http://rpmfusion.org/RPMFusionSwitcher

Not to mention that one of the great benefits of using Fedora with
packages from the usual repos, is that "yum update" takes care of
everything. Unlike the Windows-style of management, where everything is
separately handled (Windows does its own updates, your drivers need
separately updating, your software individually checks with mummy for
updates once a day, or each time you fire it up).

There used to be an easy to find page that detailed exactly what
blunders Nvidia did to your system with their install, but I can't find
it right now. Considering their prior behaviour, I have little faith in
them.

--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.



Hacker: You show me mine, and I'll show you yours.
Open source: You show me yours, and I'll show you mine.
Closed source: You sell me yours, and I'll lease you mine.


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:25 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org