Re: [ATrpms-devel] [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Paulo Cavalcanti pro...@gmail.com wrote: This is because the macros I used to filter the required should not be available for centos/rhel. I have no solution for that... Could you add the required macros to atrpms-rpm-config on EL and add a Build-Requires for the newer version? /Brian/ ___ atrpms-devel mailing list atrpms-devel@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
Re: [ATrpms-devel] [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:08 PM, George Galt george.g...@gmail.com wrote: Paulo: I get a conflict with: Transaction Check Error: file /usr/bin/nvidia-cuda-proxy-control from install of nvidia-graphics310.19-310.19-151.fc16.x86_64 conflicts with file from package nvidia-graphics304.51-304.51-149.fc16.x86_64 file /usr/bin/nvidia-cuda-proxy-server from install of nvidia-graphics310.19-310.19-151.fc16.x86_64 conflicts with file from package nvidia-graphics304.51-304.51-149.fc16.x86_64 I got the same error when I tried to install the 304.64 driver (I'm on the 304.51 driver). I believe that the 304.51 driver introduced these files (they weren't in the 302 driver). What is the appropriate way to handle this? I'm sure I could simply ignore the error, but for those who want a clean install (or to leave legacy drivers installed in case they need to return to them), we might want to fix this issue too. Sorry to be a PITA! This was happening before. nvidia-cuda-proxy-control is a new file, which appeared in the 300 series. Since it is unversioned, and the previous package is not being removed, the conflict appears. We can either supply it in a separate package, or just filter it as we did with libnvcuvid.so In the next package, I will deal with this issue. For now, just use sudo rpm -Uvh --force -- Paulo Roma Cavalcanti LCG - UFRJ ___ atrpms-devel mailing list atrpms-devel@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
Re: [ATrpms-devel] [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64
Paulo:
Thanks. I've installed it and it seems to be working (FYI, I'm still on
FC16 x86_64, for anyone who is wondering if it works on that distribution).
On addressing the conflict, I'm not sure that same filtering will work, but
simply adding a rm -f {path}/nvidia-cuda-proxy to the pre-install macro
might work. The only problem is that there is no recovery if the rest of
the install fails. I suppose you could move it to a nividia-cuda-proxy.old
file and alert the user as a recoverable alternative, but that might create
other issues. I'm just not experienced enough with building RPMs to know
which would be the best course.
Thanks for all of your work on this driver. Hopefully I can be of more
help in the future.
George
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Paulo Cavalcanti pro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:08 PM, George Galt george.g...@gmail.comwrote:
Paulo:
I get a conflict with:
Transaction Check Error:
file /usr/bin/nvidia-cuda-proxy-control from install of
nvidia-graphics310.19-310.19-151.fc16.x86_64 conflicts with file from
package nvidia-graphics304.51-304.51-149.fc16.x86_64
file /usr/bin/nvidia-cuda-proxy-server from install of
nvidia-graphics310.19-310.19-151.fc16.x86_64 conflicts with file from
package nvidia-graphics304.51-304.51-149.fc16.x86_64
I got the same error when I tried to install the 304.64 driver (I'm on
the 304.51 driver). I believe that the 304.51 driver introduced these
files (they weren't in the 302 driver). What is the appropriate way to
handle this? I'm sure I could simply ignore the error, but for those who
want a clean install (or to leave legacy drivers installed in case they
need to return to them), we might want to fix this issue too.
Sorry to be a PITA!
This was happening before.
nvidia-cuda-proxy-control is a new file, which appeared
in the 300 series. Since it is unversioned, and the previous package
is not being removed, the conflict appears.
We can either supply it in a separate package, or just
filter it as we did with libnvcuvid.so
In the next package, I will deal with this issue. For now,
just use sudo rpm -Uvh --force
--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ
___
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
___
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
Re: [ATrpms-devel] [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:18 AM, George Galt george.g...@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo:
Thanks. I've installed it and it seems to be working (FYI, I'm still on
FC16 x86_64, for anyone who is wondering if it works on that distribution).
On addressing the conflict, I'm not sure that same filtering will work,
but simply adding a rm -f {path}/nvidia-cuda-proxy to the pre-install macro
might work. The only problem is that there is no recovery if the rest of
the install fails. I suppose you could move it to a nividia-cuda-proxy.old
file and alert the user as a recoverable alternative, but that might create
other issues. I'm just not experienced enough with building RPMs to know
which would be the best course.
Thanks for all of your work on this driver. Hopefully I can be of more
help in the future.
If this file is to be contained in each versioned set of RPMs, maybe it
should be renamed and versioned as the kmdl is and have a symlink changed
with nvidia-graphics-switch.
/Brian/
___
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
Re: [ATrpms-devel] [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:15 PM, George Galt george.g...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I've tried to follow the instructions on the Packaging Guidelines,
but it doesn't seem to have worked for me. I'm reasonable new to RPM
packaging, so I might be missing something.
I've added
%filter_from_requires '/libnvcuvid.so()(64bit)/d'
after the lines
Requires(post): nvidia-graphics-helpers
%kmdl nvidia-graphics%{version}
%kmdl_parentdependencies
Well, it does work:
#Requires: python2, pyxf86config = 0.3.5
Requires(post): nvidia-graphics-helpers
%{?filter_setup:
%filter_from_requires /^libnvcuvid\.so/d;
%filter_setup
}
%kmdl nvidia-graphics%{version}
%kmdl_parentdependencies
..
I can upload a new .src.rpm, if you want.
--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
DCC - UFRJ
___
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
Re: [ATrpms-devel] [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64
Ouch! Thanks. I'll wait and give it a try a little later. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Paulo Cavalcanti pro...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM, George Galt george.g...@gmail.com wrote: Really? I must have messed up building the src.rpm from the .spec file. Oh, well. I'm just glad something worked. Please upload the src.rpm and I'll build it too. Thanks!! I am re-uploading it now (same version, same file). It should take some time because it is almost 100Mb. -- Paulo Roma Cavalcanti LCG - UFRJ ___ atrpms-devel mailing list atrpms-devel@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel ___ atrpms-devel mailing list atrpms-devel@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
Re: [ATrpms-devel] [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64
Paulo: I get a conflict with: Transaction Check Error: file /usr/bin/nvidia-cuda-proxy-control from install of nvidia-graphics310.19-310.19-151.fc16.x86_64 conflicts with file from package nvidia-graphics304.51-304.51-149.fc16.x86_64 file /usr/bin/nvidia-cuda-proxy-server from install of nvidia-graphics310.19-310.19-151.fc16.x86_64 conflicts with file from package nvidia-graphics304.51-304.51-149.fc16.x86_64 I got the same error when I tried to install the 304.64 driver (I'm on the 304.51 driver). I believe that the 304.51 driver introduced these files (they weren't in the 302 driver). What is the appropriate way to handle this? I'm sure I could simply ignore the error, but for those who want a clean install (or to leave legacy drivers installed in case they need to return to them), we might want to fix this issue too. Sorry to be a PITA! George On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Paulo Cavalcanti pro...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:14 PM, George Galt george.g...@gmail.com wrote: Ouch! Thanks. I'll wait and give it a try a little later. It is already there now... -- Paulo Roma Cavalcanti DCC - UFRJ ___ atrpms-devel mailing list atrpms-devel@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel ___ atrpms-devel mailing list atrpms-devel@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
Re: [ATrpms-devel] [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64
Mentioned in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines:
RPM attempts to auto-generate Requires (and Provides) at build time, but in some
situations, the auto-generated Requires/Provides are not correct or not wanted. For
more details on how to filter out auto-generated Requires or Provides, please see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering
Perhaps tweaking the Requires or Provides filters would do the trick. Or
add/remove directories from scanning.
Thanks for working on this!
On 12/04/2012 03:19 PM, George Galt wrote:
Paulo:
Sorry, I also meant to include a diff from the 304.51 spec file to the 310.19.
Nothing jumps out at me:
diff nvidia-graphics304.51.spec nvidia-graphics310.19.spec
2,3c2,3
Version: 304.51
Release: 149%{?dist}
---
Version: 310.19
Release: 151%{?dist}
191c191
mv %{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/lib*.so*
%{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/%{NVfolder}/
---
#mv %{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/lib*.so*
%{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/%{NVfolder}/
193c193
ln -s %{NVfolder}/libXvMCNVIDIA_dynamic.so.1
%{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/libXvMCNVIDIA.so
---
#ln -s %{NVfolder}/libXvMCNVIDIA_dynamic.so.1
%{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/libXvMCNVIDIA.so
287c287
%{_x_libraries}/%{NVfolder}/libXvMCNVIDIA*.so.*
---
#%{_x_libraries}/%{NVfolder}/libXvMCNVIDIA*.so.*
306,308c306,308
%{_x_libraries}/libXvMCNVIDIA.a
%{_x_libraries}/libXvMCNVIDIA.so
%{_x_libraries}/%{NVfolder}/libXvMCNVIDIA_dynamic.so
---
#%{_x_libraries}/libXvMCNVIDIA.a
#%{_x_libraries}/libXvMCNVIDIA.so
#%{_x_libraries}/%{NVfolder}/libXvMCNVIDIA_dynamic.so
327c327,333
* Sun Oct 21 2012 Axel Thimm Paulo Roma r...@lcg.ufrj.br
mailto:r...@lcg.ufrj.br - 304.51-149
---
* Sat Dec 01 2012 Paulo Roma r...@lcg.ufrj.br mailto:r...@lcg.ufrj.br -
310.19-151
- Update to 310.19.
* Fri Nov 9 2012 Axel Thimm axel.th...@atrpms.net - 304.64-150
- Update to 304.64.
* Sun Oct 21 2012 Paulo Roma Paulo Roma r...@lcg.ufrj.br
mailto:r...@lcg.ufrj.br - 304.51-149
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:08 PM, George Galt george.g...@gmail.com
mailto:george.g...@gmail.com wrote:
Paulo:
Oddly, prior iterations of the nvidia-graphics-libs didn't require
libnvcuvid.so, even though they installed them. I'm currently running the
304.51 driver, and rpm reports:
rpm -q --requires -p nvidia-graphics304.51-libs-304.51-149.fc16.x86_64.rpm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libXext.so.6()(64bit)
libXv.so.1()(64bit)
libXvMC.so.1()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libnvidia-glcore.so.304.51()(64bit)
libnvidia-tls.so.304.51()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
librt.so.1()(64bit)
librt.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libvdpau.so.1()(64bit)
libvdpau_nvidia.so.1()(64bit)
libvdpau_trace.so.1()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
and the driver also installed libnvcuvid.so as:
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-304.51/libnvcuvid.so.1
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-304.51/libnvcuvid.so.304.51
As you can see, the new 310 driver, unlike the 304 driver, requires
libnvcuvid:
rpm -q --requires -p nvidia-graphics310.19-libs-310.19-151.fc16.x86_64.rpm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libXext.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libnvcuvid.so()(64bit)
libnvidia-glcore.so.310.19()(64bit)
libnvidia-tls.so.310.19()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
librt.so.1()(64bit)
librt.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libvdpau.so.1()(64bit)
libvdpau_nvidia.so.1()(64bit)
libvdpau_trace.so.1()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1
But you can see that the package will install it:
rpm -q --filesbypkg -p nvidia-graphics310.19-libs-310.19-151.fc16.x86_64.rpm
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libGL.so.1
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libGL.so.310.19
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libOpenCL.so.1
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libOpenCL.so.1.0
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
