Re: [ATrpms-users] nvidia-graphics7185-1.0_7185-74.3.fc7 should have .so instead of .o?

2007-10-09 Thread Axel Thimm 
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 08:33:13AM -0300, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
  I looked at the nivida installer and there is both a nvidia_drv.o
  and a nvidia_drv.so However, ATrpms is including only nvidia_drv.o

  I changed the rpm to include both of them. I think we can keep
  both into the rpm.

Thanks Paulo!

The latest 71.xx.yy and 96.xx.yy legacy packages should properly do
that. But I also need to fix nvidia-graphics-switch (it's minor, it
should only affect old Xorg installations).
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net


pgpOHBU0cGJH2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users

Re: [ATrpms-users] nvidia-graphics7185-1.0_7185-74.3.fc7 should have .so instead of .o?

2007-09-11 Thread Paulo Cavalcanti 
On 9/10/07, Paulo Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 On 9/10/07, Paulo Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 
  On 9/10/07, David O'Shea  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   Hi Paulo, all,
  
   I removed the ATrpms nvidia RPMs and installed an equivalent set of
   livna RPMs (containing the 7185 release drivers) and these worked fine
   for me.  I assume that this is because the livna RPM provides
   nvidia_drv.so instead of nvidia_drv.o.
 
 
 
  I downloaded  the livna rpms  and I will see  the difference.
  The nvidia_drv.o is created by the nvidia installer.
  Are you sure that only creating manually a symbolic link, something
  like, nvidia_drv.so- nvidia_drv.o, does not work?
 


 I looked at the nivida installer and there is both a nvidia_drv.o and a
 nvidia_drv.so
 However, ATrpms is including only nvidia_drv.o

 I changed the rpm to include both of them. I think we can keep both
 into the rpm. In case of problems, just remove nvidia_drv.o and keep only
 nvidia_drv.so

 For F7 x86_64:

 http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/rpms/rpms74/http://people.atrpms.net/%7Epcavalcanti/rpms/rpms74/

 Can anyone test these rpms and post the result?

 I will post for F7 i386 tomorrow.



For FC7 i386, the rpms are here:

http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/rpms/rpms7/

and the new source here:

http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/nvidia-graphics7185-1.0_7185-74.4.fc6.lcg.src.rpm


Please, report the results.

-- 
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ
___
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users

Re: [ATrpms-users] nvidia-graphics7185-1.0_7185-74.3.fc7 should have .so instead of .o?

2007-09-10 Thread David O'Shea 
Hi Paulo, all,

I removed the ATrpms nvidia RPMs and installed an equivalent set of 
livna RPMs (containing the 7185 release drivers) and these worked fine 
for me.  I assume that this is because the livna RPM provides 
nvidia_drv.so instead of nvidia_drv.o.

Regards,
David

- Original Message - 
From: David O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Paulo Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: atrpms-users@atrpms.net
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [ATrpms-users] nvidia-graphics7185-1.0_7185-74.3.fc7 
should have .so instead of .o?


 Hi Paulo,

 I'm trying to use
 http://dl.atrpms.net/all/nvidia-graphics7185-1.0_7185-74.3.fc7.i386.rpm
 on Fedora 7 with a RIVA TNT2 M64.  When Xorg starts up, it reports
 'Failed to load module nvidia (module does not exist, 0)'.

 This RPM contains nvidia-1.0-7185_drv.o and a symlink from
 nvidia_drv.o to this has been created.  I note that when I 
 create a
 symlink from nvidia_drv.so (note .so not .o) to the same 
 file, I
 get a different error suggesting that Xorg wants a real .so, not 
 one I
 just renamed (dlopen: 
 /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers//nvidia_drv.so:
 only ET_DYN and ET_EXEC can be loaded).

 How come this RPM contains a .o instead of a .so?  I see in 
 e.g.

 http://atrpms.net/dist/f7/nvidia-graphics-legacy-96xx/nvidia-graphics9639-1.0_9639-83.1.fc7.i386.rpm.html
 Changed nvidia_drv.o for nvidia_drv.so, so did this old legacy 
 71.85
 driver miss out on this for some reason?  Is there some trick to 
 using
 a .o instead of a .so?


 If I remember well, .o were used previously by nvidia. They changed 
 this
 later
 and I just fixed the symbolic link (after 9639).

 Not in the legacy 7185 though?

 http://http.download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/1.0-8178/README/appendix-c.html
  
 says The nvidia_drv.so driver is compatible with Xorg 6.8 and 
 greater with dlloader support.

 http://www.warrenfalk.com/blog/2006/04/05/ati-radeon-x850-on-vs-linux/#comment-23
  
 says (not about MY problem) The problem is almost certainly an 
 X11R7 problem due to the fact that they only support dlloader 
 whereas they used to support elfloader also.

 I believe Fedora 7 is using X11R7?  If so, it seems like I NEED a 
 .so.

 I also see that 
 http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/4151294/com/xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-legacy-1.0.7185-1.lvn5.i386.rpm.html
  
 contains a nvidia_drv.so instead of .o.

 Maybe the problem you are having is caused by something else.
 Check if the nvidia module arch and your kernel match,

 The kernel module does load okay.  Not sure how to check the arch 
 via 'rpm', but 'file' seems to indicate at least that the 
 nv_drv.so that works has the same arch as the nvidia_drv.so that 
 does not:

 # file /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/nvidia-1.0-7185_drv.o
 /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/nvidia-1.0-7185_drv.o: ELF 32-bit LSB 
 relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
 # file /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/nv_drv.so
 /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/nv_drv.so: ELF 32-bit LSB shared 
 object, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), stripped

 and keep just one nvidia module version
 for the kernel you are booting (remove all other nvidia kmdl rpm 
 for this
 kernel).

 I don't have any others, this is a clean install - I only just 
 started with Fedora :)

 Also check the output of

 modinfo nvidia-7185 (I think this should be the number for you).

 # modinfo nvidia-1_0-7185
 filename: 
 /lib/modules/2.6.22.4-65.fc7/updates/drivers/video/nvidia/nvidia-1_0-7185.ko
 license:NVIDIA
 alias:  char-major-195-*
 alias:  pci:v10DEd*sv*sd*bc03sc00i00*
 depends:
 vermagic:   2.6.22.4-65.fc7 SMP mod_unload 686 4KSTACKS
 parm:   NVreg_VideoMemoryTypeOverride:int
 parm:   NVreg_EnableVia4x:int
 parm:   NVreg_EnableALiAGP:int
 parm:   NVreg_ReqAGPRate:int
 parm:   NVreg_NvAGP:int
 parm:   NVreg_EnableAGPSBA:int
 parm:   NVreg_EnableAGPFW:int
 parm:   NVreg_SoftEDIDs:int
 parm:   NVreg_Mobile:int
 parm:   NVreg_ModifyDeviceFiles:int
 parm:   NVreg_DeviceFileUID:int
 parm:   NVreg_DeviceFileGID:int
 parm:   NVreg_DeviceFileMode:int
 parm:   NVreg_ResmanDebugLevel:int
 parm:   NVreg_FlatPanelMode:int
 parm:   NVreg_DevicesConnected:int
 parm:   NVreg_VideoEnhancement:int
 parm:   NVreg_RmLogonRC:int
 parm:   NVreg_RemapLimit:int
 parm:   NVreg_UseCPA:int
 parm:   NVreg_VbiosFromROM:int
 parm:   nv_disable_pat:int

 I did have some problems with udev and SELinux - I got lots of 
 boot-time errors regarding the creation of nvidia0, nvidia1, etc., 
 but I resolved those using 'audit2allow'.

 Thanks in advance,
 David 


___
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users

Re: [ATrpms-users] nvidia-graphics7185-1.0_7185-74.3.fc7 should have .so instead of .o?

2007-09-10 Thread Paulo Cavalcanti 
On 9/10/07, David O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hi Paulo, all,

 I removed the ATrpms nvidia RPMs and installed an equivalent set of
 livna RPMs (containing the 7185 release drivers) and these worked fine
 for me.  I assume that this is because the livna RPM provides
 nvidia_drv.so instead of nvidia_drv.o.



I downloaded  the livna rpms  and I will see  the difference.
The nvidia_drv.o is created by the nvidia installer.
Are you sure that only creating manually a symbolic link, something
like, nvidia_drv.so- nvidia_drv.o, does not work?


-- 
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ
___
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users

Re: [ATrpms-users] nvidia-graphics7185-1.0_7185-74.3.fc7 should have .so instead of .o?

2007-09-10 Thread Marshall Crocker 
I was having the exact same problem with the 9639 driver.  I created a
link from nvidia_drv.so to nvidia-1.0-9639 and that did the trick for
me.  The atrpms packages may not have worked if you had any other nvidia
packages other than nvidia-graphices7185* and the nvidia helper and
devices packages.

Marshall

David O'Shea wrote:
 Hi Paulo, all,

 I removed the ATrpms nvidia RPMs and installed an equivalent set of 
 livna RPMs (containing the 7185 release drivers) and these worked fine 
 for me.  I assume that this is because the livna RPM provides 
 nvidia_drv.so instead of nvidia_drv.o.

 Regards,
 David

 - Original Message - 
 From: David O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Paulo Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Cc: atrpms-users@atrpms.net
 Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:18 PM
 Subject: Re: [ATrpms-users] nvidia-graphics7185-1.0_7185-74.3.fc7 
 should have .so instead of .o?


   
 Hi Paulo,

 
 I'm trying to use
 http://dl.atrpms.net/all/nvidia-graphics7185-1.0_7185-74.3.fc7.i386.rpm
 on Fedora 7 with a RIVA TNT2 M64.  When Xorg starts up, it reports
 'Failed to load module nvidia (module does not exist, 0)'.

 This RPM contains nvidia-1.0-7185_drv.o and a symlink from
 nvidia_drv.o to this has been created.  I note that when I 
 create a
 symlink from nvidia_drv.so (note .so not .o) to the same 
 file, I
 get a different error suggesting that Xorg wants a real .so, not 
 one I
 just renamed (dlopen: 
 /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers//nvidia_drv.so:
 only ET_DYN and ET_EXEC can be loaded).

 How come this RPM contains a .o instead of a .so?  I see in 
 e.g.

 http://atrpms.net/dist/f7/nvidia-graphics-legacy-96xx/nvidia-graphics9639-1.0_9639-83.1.fc7.i386.rpm.html
 Changed nvidia_drv.o for nvidia_drv.so, so did this old legacy 
 71.85
 driver miss out on this for some reason?  Is there some trick to 
 using
 a .o instead of a .so?
 
 If I remember well, .o were used previously by nvidia. They changed 
 this
 later
 and I just fixed the symbolic link (after 9639).
   
 Not in the legacy 7185 though?

 http://http.download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/1.0-8178/README/appendix-c.html
  
 says The nvidia_drv.so driver is compatible with Xorg 6.8 and 
 greater with dlloader support.

 http://www.warrenfalk.com/blog/2006/04/05/ati-radeon-x850-on-vs-linux/#comment-23
  
 says (not about MY problem) The problem is almost certainly an 
 X11R7 problem due to the fact that they only support dlloader 
 whereas they used to support elfloader also.

 I believe Fedora 7 is using X11R7?  If so, it seems like I NEED a 
 .so.

 I also see that 
 http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/4151294/com/xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-legacy-1.0.7185-1.lvn5.i386.rpm.html
  
 contains a nvidia_drv.so instead of .o.

 
 Maybe the problem you are having is caused by something else.
 Check if the nvidia module arch and your kernel match,
   
 The kernel module does load okay.  Not sure how to check the arch 
 via 'rpm', but 'file' seems to indicate at least that the 
 nv_drv.so that works has the same arch as the nvidia_drv.so that 
 does not:

 # file /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/nvidia-1.0-7185_drv.o
 /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/nvidia-1.0-7185_drv.o: ELF 32-bit LSB 
 relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
 # file /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/nv_drv.so
 /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/nv_drv.so: ELF 32-bit LSB shared 
 object, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), stripped

 
 and keep just one nvidia module version
 for the kernel you are booting (remove all other nvidia kmdl rpm 
 for this
 kernel).
   
 I don't have any others, this is a clean install - I only just 
 started with Fedora :)

 
 Also check the output of

 modinfo nvidia-7185 (I think this should be the number for you).
   
 # modinfo nvidia-1_0-7185
 filename: 
 /lib/modules/2.6.22.4-65.fc7/updates/drivers/video/nvidia/nvidia-1_0-7185.ko
 license:NVIDIA
 alias:  char-major-195-*
 alias:  pci:v10DEd*sv*sd*bc03sc00i00*
 depends:
 vermagic:   2.6.22.4-65.fc7 SMP mod_unload 686 4KSTACKS
 parm:   NVreg_VideoMemoryTypeOverride:int
 parm:   NVreg_EnableVia4x:int
 parm:   NVreg_EnableALiAGP:int
 parm:   NVreg_ReqAGPRate:int
 parm:   NVreg_NvAGP:int
 parm:   NVreg_EnableAGPSBA:int
 parm:   NVreg_EnableAGPFW:int
 parm:   NVreg_SoftEDIDs:int
 parm:   NVreg_Mobile:int
 parm:   NVreg_ModifyDeviceFiles:int
 parm:   NVreg_DeviceFileUID:int
 parm:   NVreg_DeviceFileGID:int
 parm:   NVreg_DeviceFileMode:int
 parm:   NVreg_ResmanDebugLevel:int
 parm:   NVreg_FlatPanelMode:int
 parm:   NVreg_DevicesConnected:int
 parm:   NVreg_VideoEnhancement:int
 parm:   NVreg_RmLogonRC:int
 parm:   NVreg_RemapLimit:int
 parm:   NVreg_UseCPA:int
 parm:   NVreg_VbiosFromROM:int
 parm:   nv_disable_pat:int

 I did have some problems with udev

Re: [ATrpms-users] nvidia-graphics7185-1.0_7185-74.3.fc7 should have .so instead of .o?

2007-09-10 Thread Paulo Cavalcanti 
On 9/10/07, Paulo Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 On 9/10/07, David O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Hi Paulo, all,
 
  I removed the ATrpms nvidia RPMs and installed an equivalent set of
  livna RPMs (containing the 7185 release drivers) and these worked fine
  for me.  I assume that this is because the livna RPM provides
  nvidia_drv.so instead of nvidia_drv.o.



 I downloaded  the livna rpms  and I will see  the difference.
 The nvidia_drv.o is created by the nvidia installer.
 Are you sure that only creating manually a symbolic link, something
 like, nvidia_drv.so- nvidia_drv.o, does not work?



I looked at the nivida installer and there is both a nvidia_drv.o and a
nvidia_drv.so
However, ATrpms is including only nvidia_drv.o

I changed the rpm to include both of them. I think we can keep both
into the rpm. In case of problems, just remove nvidia_drv.o and keep only
nvidia_drv.so

For F7 x86_64:

http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/rpms/rpms74/

Can anyone test these rpms and post the result?

I will post for F7 i386 tomorrow.

Thanks.

-- 
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ
___
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users

[ATrpms-users] nvidia-graphics7185-1.0_7185-74.3.fc7 should have .so instead of .o?

2007-09-06 Thread David O'Shea 
Hi,

I'm trying to use 
http://dl.atrpms.net/all/nvidia-graphics7185-1.0_7185-74.3.fc7.i386.rpm 
on Fedora 7 with a RIVA TNT2 M64.  When Xorg starts up, it reports 
'Failed to load module nvidia (module does not exist, 0)'.

This RPM contains nvidia-1.0-7185_drv.o and a symlink from 
nvidia_drv.o to this has been created.  I note that when I create a 
symlink from nvidia_drv.so (note .so not .o) to the same file, I 
get a different error suggesting that Xorg wants a real .so, not one I 
just renamed (dlopen: /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers//nvidia_drv.so: 
only ET_DYN and ET_EXEC can be loaded).

How come this RPM contains a .o instead of a .so?  I see in e.g. 
http://atrpms.net/dist/f7/nvidia-graphics-legacy-96xx/nvidia-graphics9639-1.0_9639-83.1.fc7.i386.rpm.html
 
Changed nvidia_drv.o for nvidia_drv.so, so did this old legacy 71.85 
driver miss out on this for some reason?  Is there some trick to using 
a .o instead of a .so?

I'm afraid Google hasn't helped me answer this question, I just see 
that others have upgraded to newer drivers to get a .so instead of a 
.o but I think I have the latest RPM available from atrpms.

Apologies for my cluelessness, I used Red Hat back in the Red Hat 
Linux 5-9 days and never had a fancy graphics card and now I have all 
these new exciting things like closed-source drivers and SELinux to 
figure out :)

Thanks in advance,
David 


___
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users

Re: [ATrpms-users] nvidia-graphics7185-1.0_7185-74.3.fc7 should have .so instead of .o?

2007-09-06 Thread Paulo Cavalcanti 
On 9/6/07, David O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hi,

 I'm trying to use
 http://dl.atrpms.net/all/nvidia-graphics7185-1.0_7185-74.3.fc7.i386.rpm
 on Fedora 7 with a RIVA TNT2 M64.  When Xorg starts up, it reports
 'Failed to load module nvidia (module does not exist, 0)'.

 This RPM contains nvidia-1.0-7185_drv.o and a symlink from
 nvidia_drv.o to this has been created.  I note that when I create a
 symlink from nvidia_drv.so (note .so not .o) to the same file, I
 get a different error suggesting that Xorg wants a real .so, not one I
 just renamed (dlopen: /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers//nvidia_drv.so:
 only ET_DYN and ET_EXEC can be loaded).

 How come this RPM contains a .o instead of a .so?  I see in e.g.

 http://atrpms.net/dist/f7/nvidia-graphics-legacy-96xx/nvidia-graphics9639-1.0_9639-83.1.fc7.i386.rpm.html
 Changed nvidia_drv.o for nvidia_drv.so, so did this old legacy 71.85
 driver miss out on this for some reason?  Is there some trick to using
 a .o instead of a .so?


If I remember well, .o were used previously by nvidia. They changed this
later
and I just fixed the symbolic link (after 9639).

Maybe the problem you are having is caused by something else.
Check if the nvidia module arch and your kernel match,  and keep just one
nvidia module version
for the kernel you are booting (remove all other nvidia kmdl rpm for this
kernel).

Also check the output of

modinfo nvidia-7185 (I think this should be the number for you).

-- 
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ
___
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users