Re: [ATrpms-devel] [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64

[Brian Long]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:16 PM, George Galt  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Brian Long  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:05 AM, George Galt wrote:
>>
>>> Brian:
>>>
>>> As I noted above, there appears to be a mismatch between what RPM
>>> believes the package provides and what it requires.  For the 304.51 driver,
>>> the -libs file "provides" libnvcuvid.so.1, and "requires" libnvcuvid.so.1.
>>> However, for the 310.19 driver, the -libs file provides "libnvcuvid.so.1"
>>> but requires "libnvcuvid()(64-bit).  The list of what is "provided" by a
>>> package and "required" by a package is generated by RPM.  It seems that
>>> somehow RPM inspects the 310-libs package and gets the list wrong, but got
>>> it right on the 304-libs package.
>>>
>>> I don't know if there is a way other than the macros to alter the
>>> "requires" list to properly state that the 310-libs package requires
>>> libnvcuvid.so.1, but that is where things are failing.  I hope this helps.
>>
>>
>> Could you just use the following inside the .spec?
>> Autoreq: 0
>>
>> This would make the RPM rely solely on the "Requires:" entries specified
>> in the .spec, but it wouldn't search for automatic requirements.
>>
>> Just an idea.
>>
>> /Brian/
>>
>> ___
>> atrpms-devel mailing list
>> atrpms-devel@atrpms.net
>> http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
>>
>
> Brian:
>
> As I mentioned somewhere in this thread, I'm new to building rpms, so I'm
> not in a position to evaluate your proposal.  However, assuming it does
> what you say, and the SPEC was populated with a reasonable list, it would
> seem to be a good option.
>

Understood, George.  Look for autoreq in this page:
http://rpm5.org/docs/api/specfile.html

I've used it many years ago when packaging Oracle RDBMS into an RPM.   Boy
was that fun.  :-)

/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

[George Galt]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Brian Long  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:05 AM, George Galt wrote:
>
>> Brian:
>>
>> As I noted above, there appears to be a mismatch between what RPM
>> believes the package provides and what it requires.  For the 304.51 driver,
>> the -libs file "provides" libnvcuvid.so.1, and "requires" libnvcuvid.so.1.
>> However, for the 310.19 driver, the -libs file provides "libnvcuvid.so.1"
>> but requires "libnvcuvid()(64-bit).  The list of what is "provided" by a
>> package and "required" by a package is generated by RPM.  It seems that
>> somehow RPM inspects the 310-libs package and gets the list wrong, but got
>> it right on the 304-libs package.
>>
>> I don't know if there is a way other than the macros to alter the
>> "requires" list to properly state that the 310-libs package requires
>> libnvcuvid.so.1, but that is where things are failing.  I hope this helps.
>
>
> Could you just use the following inside the .spec?
> Autoreq: 0
>
> This would make the RPM rely solely on the "Requires:" entries specified
> in the .spec, but it wouldn't search for automatic requirements.
>
> Just an idea.
>
> /Brian/
>
> ___
> atrpms-devel mailing list
> atrpms-devel@atrpms.net
> http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
>

Brian:

As I mentioned somewhere in this thread, I'm new to building rpms, so I'm
not in a position to evaluate your proposal.  However, assuming it does
what you say, and the SPEC was populated with a reasonable list, it would
seem to be a good option.

George
___
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

[Brian Long]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:05 AM, George Galt  wrote:

> Brian:
>
> As I noted above, there appears to be a mismatch between what RPM believes
> the package provides and what it requires.  For the 304.51 driver, the
> -libs file "provides" libnvcuvid.so.1, and "requires" libnvcuvid.so.1.
> However, for the 310.19 driver, the -libs file provides "libnvcuvid.so.1"
> but requires "libnvcuvid()(64-bit).  The list of what is "provided" by a
> package and "required" by a package is generated by RPM.  It seems that
> somehow RPM inspects the 310-libs package and gets the list wrong, but got
> it right on the 304-libs package.
>
> I don't know if there is a way other than the macros to alter the
> "requires" list to properly state that the 310-libs package requires
> libnvcuvid.so.1, but that is where things are failing.  I hope this helps.


Could you just use the following inside the .spec?
Autoreq: 0

This would make the RPM rely solely on the "Requires:" entries specified in
the .spec, but it wouldn't search for automatic requirements.

Just an idea.

/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

[Chris Schanzle]

On 12/12/2012 06:00 AM, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:



On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:42 AM, O&M Ugarcina mailto:mo.uc...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 06/12/12 19:39, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:



On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:08 PM, George Galt mailto: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 "
.19-151.el6.x86_64


I just had to force it in , with --nodeps option , so far seems to be 
working ok .


Best Regards

Milorad



This is because the macros I used to filter the "required"
should not be available for centos/rhel.

I have no solution for that...


Paulo, I would expect those macros to be available for RHEL6 and modern Fedora, 
just leaving RHEL5 with issues?

___
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

[George Galt]

Brian:

As I noted above, there appears to be a mismatch between what RPM believes
the package provides and what it requires.  For the 304.51 driver, the
-libs file "provides" libnvcuvid.so.1, and "requires" libnvcuvid.so.1.
However, for the 310.19 driver, the -libs file provides "libnvcuvid.so.1"
but requires "libnvcuvid()(64-bit).  The list of what is "provided" by a
package and "required" by a package is generated by RPM.  It seems that
somehow RPM inspects the 310-libs package and gets the list wrong, but got
it right on the 304-libs package.

I don't know if there is a way other than the macros to alter the
"requires" list to properly state that the 310-libs package requires
libnvcuvid.so.1, but that is where things are failing.  I hope this helps.

George


On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Brian Long  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Paulo Cavalcanti 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
>
___
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

[Brian Long]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Paulo Cavalcanti  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

[Paulo Cavalcanti]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:42 AM, O&M Ugarcina  wrote:

> On 06/12/12 19:39, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
>
>
>>
>> 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 "
>> .19-151.el6.x86_64
>>
>
> I just had to force it in , with --nodeps option , so far seems to be
> working ok .
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Milorad
>
>
>
This is because the macros I used to filter the "required"
should not be available for centos/rhel.

I have no solution for that...



-- 
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 Cavalcanti]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Brian Long  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:18 AM, George Galt 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.
>


Well, I think the straightforward way using Axel's macros is just creating
a new package:

nvidia-graphics310.19-cuda-proxy-310.19-151.fc17.x86_64.rpm

with only tree files:

/usr/bin/nvidia-cuda-proxy-control
/usr/bin/nvidia-cuda-proxy-server
/usr/share/man/man1/nvidia-cuda-proxy-control-310.19.1.gz

This new package does not need to be installed in general, and for
upgrading it,
the "force" option should be used.

Please, note that in previous versions of the drivers, the devel package
was in the same situation, because it also cointained unversioned files:

nvidia-graphics304.64devel304.64-150.fc17.x86_64


/usr/lib64/libXvMCNVIDIA.a


/usr/lib64/libXvMCNVIDIA.so

.

Fortunately, these files are gone in the 310 series, and the devel package
upgrades just fine:

http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/oZnc5F6swcgI1H3bd9dR

However, old cards of series 6 and 7 can only use up to the 304 series:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux-display-amd64-304.64-driver.html

>From now on, nvidia will ship three different kinds of drivers ...

I have updated the .src.rpm for for the 310 series:

http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/nvidia-graphics310.19-310.19-151.fc17.src.rpm

and maybe Axel can ship this new version, in addition to the previous ones.

Thank you all for testing the new packages.


-- 
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

[Brian Long]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:18 AM, George Galt  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

[George Galt]

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  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:08 PM, George Galt 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
>
___
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 Cavalcanti]

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:08 PM, George Galt  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

[George Galt]

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  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:14 PM, George Galt  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

[Paulo Cavalcanti]

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:14 PM, George Galt  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

Re: [ATrpms-devel] [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64

[George Galt]

Ouch!  Thanks.  I'll wait and give it a try a little later.


On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Paulo Cavalcanti  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM, George Galt  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 Cavalcanti]

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM, George Galt  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

Re: [ATrpms-devel] [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64

[George Galt]

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!!


On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Paulo Cavalcanti  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:15 PM, George Galt  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
>
___
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 Cavalcanti]

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:15 PM, George Galt  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

[George Galt]

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

in the .spec file, but it doesn't seem to fix it.  If anyone has any
suggestions on how to proceed, I would appreciate it.

One interesting thing, during building the driver using Paulo's "bkmdl.sh"
script, there is some output that gives both a "Provides" and a "Requires"
line.  For the 304.51 driver, the -libs file is listed as "providing"
libnvcuvid.so.1, and requiring libnvcuvid.so.1.  However, for the 310.19
driver, the -libs file provides "libnvcuvid.so.1" but requires
"libnvcuvid()(64-bit).

George




On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Chris Schanzle  wrote:

> Mentioned in 
> 
> >:
>
> 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:  AutoProvidesAndRequiresFilteri**ng
> >
>
> 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>> - 304.51-149
>> ---
>>
>>> * Sat Dec 01 2012 Paulo Roma mailto:r...@lcg.ufrj.br>>
>>> - 310.19-151
>>>
>>> - Update to 310.19.
>>>
>>> * Fri Nov  9 2012 Axel Thimm  - 304.64-150
>>> - Update to 304.64.
>>>
>>> * Sun Oct 21 2012 Paulo Roma Paulo Roma >> r...@lcg.ufrj.br>> - 304.51-149
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:08 PM, George Galt > 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
>>

Re: [ATrpms-devel] [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64

[Chris Schanzle]

Mentioned in :

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: 


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 mailto:r...@lcg.ufrj.br>> - 304.51-149
---

* Sat Dec 01 2012 Paulo Roma mailto:r...@lcg.ufrj.br>> - 
310.19-151
- Update to 310.19.

* Fri Nov  9 2012 Axel Thimm  - 304.64-150
- Update to 304.64.

* Sun Oct 21 2012 Paulo Roma Paulo Roma mailto:r...@lcg.ufrj.br>> - 304.51-149




On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:08 PM, George Galt 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 
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libOpenCL.so.1.0.0
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/

Re: [ATrpms-devel] [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64

[George Galt]

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  - 304.51-149
---
> * Sat Dec 01 2012 Paulo Roma  - 310.19-151
> - Update to 310.19.
>
> * Fri Nov  9 2012 Axel Thimm  - 304.64-150
> - Update to 304.64.
>
> * Sun Oct 21 2012 Paulo Roma Paulo Roma  - 304.51-149



On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:08 PM, George Galt  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
> /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libOpenCL.so.1.0.0
> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libcuda.so.1
> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
> /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libcuda.so.310.19
> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
> /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvcuvid.so.1
> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
> /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvcuvid.so.310.19
> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
> /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-cfg.so.1
> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
> /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-cfg.so.310.19
> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
> /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-compiler.so.310.19
> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
> /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-encode.so.1
> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
> /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-encode.so.310.19
> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
> /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-glcore

Re: [ATrpms-devel] [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64

[George Galt]

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
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libOpenCL.so.1.0.0
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libcuda.so.1
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libcuda.so.310.19
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvcuvid.so.1
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvcuvid.so.310.19
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-cfg.so.1
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-cfg.so.310.19
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-compiler.so.310.19
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-encode.so.1
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-encode.so.310.19
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-glcore.so.310.19
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-ml.so.1
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-ml.so.310.19
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-opencl.so.1
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-opencl.so.310.19
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libnvidia-tls.so.310.19
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libvdpau.so
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libvdpau.so.1
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libvdpau.so.310.19
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libvdpau_nvidia.so
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/libvdpau_trace.so
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/tls
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/tls/libnvidia-tls.so.310.19
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/vdpau
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/vdpau/libvdpau_nvidia.so.1
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/vdpau/libvdpau_nvidia.so.310.19
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/vdpau/libvdpau_trace.so.1
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs
/usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-310.19/vdpau/libvdpau_trace.so.310.19


Do you know where the "requires" variables are set?  I am assuming that it
is something in the SPEC file.  We could simply take the route of prior
drivers

Re: [ATrpms-devel] [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64

[Paulo Cavalcanti]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM, George Galt  wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 2:13 AM, O&M Ugarcina  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
 In each case, the path differs by the addition of
 "nvidia-graphics-310.14" before the file being looked for.  Does anyone
 have any idea how to either adjust the spec file or alter the way it looks
 for these files?

 Thanks,

 George

>>> Hello Guys,
>>>
>>>

I have a fixed .src.rpm, here:

http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/nvidia-graphics310.19-310.19-151.fc17.src.rpm

In fact, the fix was easy, and I just had to comment a few lines in the
spec file.

However, when installing, rpm keeps complaining about

libnvcuvid.so()(64bit) is needed by
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs-310.19-151.fc17.x86_64

I just used --nodeps and everything installs and runs fine.

Maybe someone can take a look and figure what is going on...


-- 
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

[Paulo Cavalcanti]

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 2:13 AM, O&M Ugarcina  wrote:

>
>
>> In each case, the path differs by the addition of
>> "nvidia-graphics-310.14" before the file being looked for.  Does anyone
>> have any idea how to either adjust the spec file or alter the way it looks
>> for these files?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> George
>>
> Hello Guys,
>
> I am trying to package up the new 310.19 drivers for el6 64 bit and
> striking similar issue . I my case the stopping point is :
>
> + mv '/root/redhat/BUILDROOT/**nvidia-graphics310.19-310.19-**
> 151.el6.x86_64/usr/lib64/lib*.**so*' /root/redhat/BUILDROOT/nvidia-**
> graphics310.19-310.19-151.el6.**x86_64/usr/lib64/nvidia-**graphics-310.19/
>
> mv: cannot stat `/root/redhat/BUILDROOT/**nvidia-graphics310.19-310.19-**
> 151.el6.x86_64/usr/lib64/lib*.**so*': No such file or directory
> error: Bad exit status from /root/redhat/tmp/rpm-tmp.**6Hwirh (%install)
>
> In the previous version 304 , the compilation proceeded here like this :
>
> + mkdir -p /root/redhat/BUILDROOT/nvidia-**graphics304.64-304.64-150.el6.*
> *x86_64/usr/lib64/nvidia-**graphics-304.64
>
> + mv /root/redhat/BUILDROOT/nvidia-**graphics304.64-304.64-150.el6.**
> x86_64/usr/lib64/**libXvMCNVIDIA.so.304.64 /root/redhat/BUILDROOT/nvidia-*
> *graphics304.64-304.64-150.el6.**x86_64/usr/lib64/**libXvMCNVIDIA_dynamic.so
> /root/redhat/BUILDROOT/nvidia-**graphics304.64-304.64-150.el6.**
> x86_64/usr/lib64/**libXvMCNVIDIA_dynamic.so.1
> /root/redhat/BUILDROOT/nvidia-**graphics304.64-304.64-150.el6.**
> x86_64/usr/lib64/nvidia-**graphics-304.64/
>
> which is to move the libXvMCNVIDIA across to the new dir as this was the
> last lot of libs to move . However the new rev 310 do not contain this lib
> as we can see from the .run archive contents :
>
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 10220750 Oct 31 05:32 libcuda.so.304.64
> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root  652 Oct 31 06:06 libGL.la
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root  1076560 Oct 31 05:18 libGL.so.304.64
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root  8488456 Oct 31 05:20 libglx.so.304.64
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root  2196224 Oct 31 06:05 libnvcuvid.so.304.64
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root   144864 Oct 31 06:04 libnvidia-cfg.so.304.64
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 27749808 Oct 31 06:06 libnvidia-compiler.so.304.64
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 35453520 Oct 31 05:17 libnvidia-glcore.so.304.64
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root   394280 Oct 31 06:05 libnvidia-ml.so.304.64
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root  8628148 Oct 31 05:26 libnvidia-opencl.so.304.64
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root11704 Oct 31 05:20 libnvidia-tls.so.304.64
> -r-xr-xr-x. 1 root root   295416 Jul  6 04:35 libnvidia-wfb.so.304.64
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root21296 Oct 31 05:26 libOpenCL.so.1.0.0
> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root  1813064 Oct 31 05:20 libvdpau_nvidia.so.304.64
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 4704 Oct 31 05:20 libvdpau.so.304.64
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root46872 Oct 31 05:20 libvdpau_trace.so.304.64
> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root   233540 Oct 31 05:03 libXvMCNVIDIA.a
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root   167000 Oct 31 05:03 libXvMCNVIDIA.so.304.64
>
>
>
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 10321518 Nov  8 20:29 libcuda.so.310.19
> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root  652 Nov  8 21:11 libGL.la
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root  1099472 Nov  8 20:12 libGL.so.310.19
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root  8623560 Nov  8 20:14 libglx.so.310.19
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root  2358352 Nov  8 21:10 libnvcuvid.so.310.19
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root   148960 Nov  8 21:09 libnvidia-cfg.so.310.19
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 27749808 Nov  8 21:11 libnvidia-compiler.so.310.19
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root   131056 Nov  8 21:10 libnvidia-encode.so.310.19
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 36540016 Nov  8 20:11 libnvidia-glcore.so.310.19
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root   394280 Nov  8 21:09 libnvidia-ml.so.310.19
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root  8612212 Nov  8 20:21 libnvidia-opencl.so.310.19
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root11736 Nov  8 20:14 libnvidia-tls.so.310.19
> -r-xr-xr-x. 1 root root   295416 Nov 19  2010 libnvidia-wfb.so.310.19
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root21296 Nov  8 20:21 libOpenCL.so.1.0.0
> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root  1813064 Nov  8 20:15 libvdpau_nvidia.so.310.19
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 6304 Nov  8 20:15 libvdpau.so.310.19
> -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root46872 Nov  8 20:15 libvdpau_trace.so.310.19
>
> So this leaves us in a bit of a sticky situation . Specially as the
> specfile goes on to link these libs as per :
>
> mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/%{**NVfolder}
> mv %{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/**lib*.so* %{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/%{**
> NVfolder}/
> /sbin/ldconfig -n %{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/%{**NVfolder}
> ln -s %{NVfolder}/libXvMCNVIDIA_**dynamic.so.1
> %{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/**libXvMCNVIDIA.so
>
>
> We need to change this part , but not knowing what that lib did or if
> there is an equivalent , this becomes a trickier proposition . Any
> information welcomed on how to move on from this stalemate ..
>
> Best Regards
>
> Milorad
>
>
First of all, if you define a macro (tcsh):

alias   reval   'rpm --eval "%{\!*}"'

and,

[cascavel:~/RPMS174/update