On Tuesday 14 Oct 2003 02:57, Chris I wrote: > On 2003.10.13 18:41, Peter Ruskin wrote: > > On Monday 13 Oct 2003 23:29, Ernie Schroder wrote: > > > On Monday 13 October 2003 05:42 pm, Peter Ruskin wrote: > > > > On Monday 13 Oct 2003 21:54, mathieu perrenoud wrote: > > > > > nvidia compile against the kernel pointed by the link > > > > > /usr/src/linux > > > > > > > > > > 1. link /usr/src/linux to the 1st kernel sources > > > > > 2. emerge nvidia-kernel > > > > > 3. link to the second kernel > > > > > 4. emerge nvidia-kernel > > > > > > > > Aaaah, but when portage has emerged nvidia-kernel to the second > > > > kernel it removes the first one. This is just ridiculous but > > > > that's what happens. > > > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > Would --noreplace keep this dog at bay? > > > > No, that's for something else. I really don't know how matthieu > > can do > > it: there is a long-standing bug about portage's inability to > > handle multiple installed kernels - > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1477 > > I seem to remember that back when I used an nvidia card, they put the > kernel version in the slot number. Does portage not support this > anymore? > > One could get around this in two ways that I can come up with from > the top of my head. With cp: > > cd /usr/src && ln -sf KERNEL1 linux > emerge nvidia-kernel > cp -a /lib/modules/KERNEL1 /lib/modules/KERNEL1.with_nvidia > rm linux && ln -sf KERNEL2 linux > emerge nvidia-kernel > rm -rf /lib/modules/KERNEL1 > cp -a /lib/modules/KERNEL1.with_nvidia /lib/modules/KERNEL1
Interesting, but I don't think it would work. nvidia.o gets installed to /lib/modules/`uname -r` so linking /usr/src/linux to a different source won't make any difference - it looks for the running kernel. > > You could copy just the nvidia modules, which is probably a little > saner. Then you get "unresolved symbols" messages. > > Another way that should be better, and easier, but still not ideal > would be to emerge nvidia-kernel with --oneshot. The package would > not be added to world, and I would assume (possibly incorrectly, I > have not looked at the source) the package's files would not be > logged by portage. That's worth a try, thanks. Peter -- ====================================================================== Portage 2.0.49-r13 (default-x86-1.4, gcc-3.2.3, glibc-2.3.2-r1, 2.4.23_pre6-gss-r1) i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+ ====================================================================== -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
