[gentoo-user] x11-base/xorg-server-1.5.3-r5 with x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 -- file conflict
x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 won't compile due to a file conflict, but portageq does not see it. Background: I've been masking out the new xorg server, but things have started to break, so I'm giving in. The process has been shaky, and I'm currently running something different from what I've compiled -- an unstable and worrisome condition. The last piece seems to be the ATI drivers, which have forced me to reconfigure the kernel 2 or 3 times. Fortunately I was able to do that before any of the recompilations that are now out of sync with my running system. The problem: Compiling the driver errors out with this message >>> Installing x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 * checking 126 files for package collisions * This package will overwrite one or more files that may belong to other * packages (see list below). You can use a command such as `portageq * owners / ` to identify the installed package that owns a * file. If portageq reports that only one package owns a file then do * NOT file a bug report. A bug report is only useful if it identifies at * least two or more packages that are known to install the same file(s). * If a collision occurs and you can not explain where the file came from * then you should simply ignore the collision since there is not enough * information to determine if a real problem exists. Please do NOT file * a bug report at http://bugs.gentoo.org unless you report exactly which * two packages install the same file(s). Once again, please do NOT file * a bug report unless you have completely understood the above message. * * Detected file collision(s): * * /usr/lib/opengl/ati/extensions/libglx.so * * Searching all installed packages for file collisions... * * Press Ctrl-C to Stop * * x11-base/xorg-server-1.5.3-r5 * /usr/lib/opengl/ati/extensions/libglx.so * * Package 'x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2' NOT merged due to file * collisions. If necessary, refer to your elog messages for the whole * content of the above message. >>> Failed to install x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2, Log file: The log has no information not in the error message above. The portageq command suggested in the message names only one package: xorg-server, but not the ati driver. But the file is clearly listed earlier among the files it will check for collisions. Anybody know how to work around this? ++ kevin -- Kevin O'Gorman, PhD
Re: [gentoo-user] x11-base/xorg-server-1.5.3-r5 with x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 -- file conflict
On Freitag 22 Mai 2009, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 won't compile due to a file conflict, > but portageq does not see it. > > Background: > > I've been masking out the new xorg server, but things have started to > break, so I'm giving in. > > The process has been shaky, and I'm currently running something > different from what I've compiled -- an unstable and worrisome > condition. > > The last piece seems to be the ATI drivers, which have forced me to > reconfigure the kernel 2 or 3 times. Fortunately I was able to do > that before any of the recompilations that are now out of sync with my > running system. > > The problem: Compiling the driver errors out with this message > > >>> Installing x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 > > * checking 126 files for package collisions > * This package will overwrite one or more files that may belong to other > * packages (see list below). You can use a command such as `portageq > * owners / ` to identify the installed package that owns a > * file. If portageq reports that only one package owns a file then do > * NOT file a bug report. A bug report is only useful if it identifies at > * least two or more packages that are known to install the same file(s). > * If a collision occurs and you can not explain where the file came from > * then you should simply ignore the collision since there is not enough > * information to determine if a real problem exists. Please do NOT file > * a bug report at http://bugs.gentoo.org unless you report exactly which > * two packages install the same file(s). Once again, please do NOT file > * a bug report unless you have completely understood the above message. > * > * Detected file collision(s): > * > * /usr/lib/opengl/ati/extensions/libglx.so > * > * Searching all installed packages for file collisions... > * > * Press Ctrl-C to Stop > * > * x11-base/xorg-server-1.5.3-r5 > * /usr/lib/opengl/ati/extensions/libglx.so > * > * Package 'x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2' NOT merged due to file > * collisions. If necessary, refer to your elog messages for the whole > * content of the above message. > > >>> Failed to install x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2, Log file: > > The log has no information not in the error message above. The > portageq command suggested in the message names only one package: > xorg-server, but not the ati driver. But the file is clearly listed > earlier among the files it will check for collisions. > > Anybody know how to work around this? > > ++ kevin yes, remove /usr/lib/opengl/ati/extensions/libglx.so it should be owned by ati-drivers, if not, some screw up happened. /me wonders why there is still a stone old buggy ebuild/driver in 'stable'.
Re: [gentoo-user] x11-base/xorg-server-1.5.3-r5 with x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 -- file conflict
Volker Armin Hemmann writes: > On Freitag 22 Mai 2009, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > > x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 won't compile due to a file conflict, > > but portageq does not see it. Probably because the ati-drivers you already have installed do not have this file, either because they are an older version, or they did not create it when compiling against the old x.org. > > Anybody know how to work around this? > yes, remove /usr/lib/opengl/ati/extensions/libglx.so it should be owned > by ati-drivers, if not, some screw up happened. Or use 'FEATURES=-collision-protect emerge ati-drivers'. I think I had the same collision. > /me wonders why there is still a stone old buggy ebuild/driver in > 'stable'. I was not able to compile newer ati-drivers with tuxonice-sources-2.6.28-r3. Or ANY ati-drivers with a newer tuxonice kernel. Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] x11-base/xorg-server-1.5.3-r5 with x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 -- file conflict
On Freitag 22 Mai 2009, Alex Schuster wrote: > Volker Armin Hemmann writes: > > On Freitag 22 Mai 2009, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > > > x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 won't compile due to a file conflict, > > > but portageq does not see it. > > Probably because the ati-drivers you already have installed do not have > this file, either because they are an older version, or they did not create > it when compiling against the old x.org. > > > > Anybody know how to work around this? > > > > yes, remove /usr/lib/opengl/ati/extensions/libglx.so it should be owned > > by ati-drivers, if not, some screw up happened. > > Or use 'FEATURES=-collision-protect emerge ati-drivers'. I think I had the > same collision. > > > /me wonders why there is still a stone old buggy ebuild/driver in > > 'stable'. > > I was not able to compile newer ati-drivers with > tuxonice-sources-2.6.28-r3. Or ANY ati-drivers with a newer tuxonice > kernel. > > Wonko 9.4 and 9.5 worked fine with 2.6.28.X+tuxonice patches (not using ebuild for tuxonice, using 'homemade' ebuilds for 9.4&5 because ebuild renaming seems to be hard atm).
Re: [gentoo-user] x11-base/xorg-server-1.5.3-r5 with x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 -- file conflict
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Alex Schuster wrote: > Volker Armin Hemmann writes: > >> On Freitag 22 Mai 2009, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: >> > x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 won't compile due to a file conflict, >> > but portageq does not see it. > > Probably because the ati-drivers you already have installed do not have this > file, either because they are an older version, or they did not create it > when compiling against the old x.org. > >> > Anybody know how to work around this? > >> yes, remove /usr/lib/opengl/ati/extensions/libglx.so it should be owned >> by ati-drivers, if not, some screw up happened. > > Or use 'FEATURES=-collision-protect emerge ati-drivers'. I think I had the > same collision. > >> /me wonders why there is still a stone old buggy ebuild/driver in >> 'stable'. > > I was not able to compile newer ati-drivers with tuxonice-sources-2.6.28-r3. > Or ANY ati-drivers with a newer tuxonice kernel. > I thank you for the expert advice. I'm doing the emerge now, but even if it succeeds, I'm worried that the xorg-server will still own this file, since portageq seems to see that it does. This seems inherently wrong. Sigh. I'm too far along to flinch now, so if this emerges, I'll probably restart X. Wish me luck. -- Kevin O'Gorman, PhD
Re: [gentoo-user] x11-base/xorg-server-1.5.3-r5 with x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 -- file conflict
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Alex Schuster wrote: >> Volker Armin Hemmann writes: >> >>> On Freitag 22 Mai 2009, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: >>> > x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 won't compile due to a file conflict, >>> > but portageq does not see it. >> >> Probably because the ati-drivers you already have installed do not have this >> file, either because they are an older version, or they did not create it >> when compiling against the old x.org. >> >>> > Anybody know how to work around this? >> >>> yes, remove /usr/lib/opengl/ati/extensions/libglx.so it should be owned >>> by ati-drivers, if not, some screw up happened. >> >> Or use 'FEATURES=-collision-protect emerge ati-drivers'. I think I had the >> same collision. >> >>> /me wonders why there is still a stone old buggy ebuild/driver in >>> 'stable'. >> >> I was not able to compile newer ati-drivers with tuxonice-sources-2.6.28-r3. >> Or ANY ati-drivers with a newer tuxonice kernel. >> > > I thank you for the expert advice. I'm doing the emerge now, but even > if it succeeds, I'm worried that the xorg-server will still own this > file, since portageq seems to see that it does. This seems inherently > wrong. > > Sigh. I'm too far along to flinch now, so if this emerges, I'll > probably restart X. > > Wish me luck. Hmm. Even with the FEATURES option from the suggestion, I get exactly the same error message. I cut-and-pasted it, but I wonder if it's spelled right? I'm going to try just deleting (well, renaming) the file, hoping that this will work... -- Kevin O'Gorman, PhD
Re: [gentoo-user] x11-base/xorg-server-1.5.3-r5 with x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 -- file conflict
Kevin O'Gorman writes: > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > > I thank you for the expert advice. I'm doing the emerge now, but even > > if it succeeds, I'm worried that the xorg-server will still own this > > file, since portageq seems to see that it does. This seems inherently > > wrong. Well, it is indeed. > > Sigh. I'm too far along to flinch now, so if this emerges, I'll > > probably restart X. > > > > Wish me luck. I do, but I do not believe bad things might happen. > Hmm. Even with the FEATURES option from the suggestion, I get exactly > the same error message. I cut-and-pasted it, but I wonder if it's > spelled right? It is. But I forgot about the protect-owned feature. I thought -collision- protect would act stronger and imply it, but apparently it does not. So, 'FEATURES=-protect-owned emerge ati-drivers' might have worked better. If not, 'FEATURES="-collision-protect -protect-owned" emerge ati-drivers' would have worked in any case. > I'm going to try just deleting (well, renaming) the file, hoping that > this will work... Yes, that's okay. After all, the file is still there, it's just now being generated by the ati-driver. I wouldn't worry too much. Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] x11-base/xorg-server-1.5.3-r5 with x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 -- file conflict
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Alex Schuster wrote: > Kevin O'Gorman writes: > >> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Kevin O'Gorman > wrote: > >> > I thank you for the expert advice. I'm doing the emerge now, but even >> > if it succeeds, I'm worried that the xorg-server will still own this >> > file, since portageq seems to see that it does. This seems inherently >> > wrong. > > Well, it is indeed. > >> > Sigh. I'm too far along to flinch now, so if this emerges, I'll >> > probably restart X. >> > >> > Wish me luck. > > I do, but I do not believe bad things might happen. > >> Hmm. Even with the FEATURES option from the suggestion, I get exactly >> the same error message. I cut-and-pasted it, but I wonder if it's >> spelled right? > > It is. But I forgot about the protect-owned feature. I thought -collision- > protect would act stronger and imply it, but apparently it does not. So, > 'FEATURES=-protect-owned emerge ati-drivers' might have worked better. If > not, 'FEATURES="-collision-protect -protect-owned" emerge ati-drivers' would > have worked in any case. > >> I'm going to try just deleting (well, renaming) the file, hoping that >> this will work... > > Yes, that's okay. After all, the file is still there, it's just now being > generated by the ati-driver. I wouldn't worry too much. > > Wonko well, it emerged this time. I'm going to restart X over the weekend, when I'll have time to clean up the mess that I half expect. ++ kevin -- Kevin O'Gorman, PhD
Re: [gentoo-user] x11-base/xorg-server-1.5.3-r5 with x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 -- file conflict
Summary: X is hosed. On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Alex Schuster wrote: >> Kevin O'Gorman writes: >> >>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Kevin O'Gorman >> wrote: >> >>> > I thank you for the expert advice. I'm doing the emerge now, but even >>> > if it succeeds, I'm worried that the xorg-server will still own this >>> > file, since portageq seems to see that it does. This seems inherently >>> > wrong. >> >> Well, it is indeed. >> >>> > Sigh. I'm too far along to flinch now, so if this emerges, I'll >>> > probably restart X. >>> > >>> > Wish me luck. >> >> I do, but I do not believe bad things might happen. >> >>> Hmm. Even with the FEATURES option from the suggestion, I get exactly >>> the same error message. I cut-and-pasted it, but I wonder if it's >>> spelled right? >> >> It is. But I forgot about the protect-owned feature. I thought -collision- >> protect would act stronger and imply it, but apparently it does not. So, >> 'FEATURES=-protect-owned emerge ati-drivers' might have worked better. If >> not, 'FEATURES="-collision-protect -protect-owned" emerge ati-drivers' would >> have worked in any case. >> >>> I'm going to try just deleting (well, renaming) the file, hoping that >>> this will work... >> >> Yes, that's okay. After all, the file is still there, it's just now being >> generated by the ati-driver. I wouldn't worry too much. >> >> Wonko > > well, it emerged this time. I'm going to restart X over the weekend, > when I'll have time to clean up the mess that I half expect. > > ++ kevin As I suspected, X won't restart. When I reboot, the scripts want to run "xdm", which is not loaded on the system. This started a while ago and is part of what made me give up on keeping the new xorg masked. "kdm" does nothing at all that I can see, but it was the way I was getting X up before I re-emerged the ati drivers. "startx" at least gives error messages and writes the log. It didn't like my xorg.conf, and had this to say about it: = treat X11 # startx xauth: creating new authority file /root/.serverauth.7467 X.Org X Server 1.5.3 Release Date: 5 November 2008 X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0 Build Operating System: Linux 2.6.28-gentoo-r5-kosmanor i686 Current Operating System: Linux treat 2.6.28-gentoo-r5-kosmanor #5 SMP PREEMPT Tue May 19 13:17:14 PDT 2009 i686 Build Date: 18 May 2009 09:25:28PM Before reporting problems, check http://wiki.x.org to make sure that you have the latest version. Markers: (--) probed, (**) from config file, (==) default setting, (++) from command line, (!!) notice, (II) informational, (WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown. (==) Log file: "/var/log/Xorg.0.log", Time: Sat May 23 14:54:31 2009 (==) Using config file: "/etc/X11/xorg.conf" (EE) Failed to load module "type1" (module does not exist, 0) (EE) module ABI major version (1) doesn't match the server's version (4) (EE) Failed to load module "ati" (module requirement mismatch, 0) (EE) No drivers available. Fatal server error: no screens found giving up. xinit: Connection refused (errno 111): unable to connect to X server xinit: No such process (errno 3): Server error. treat X11 # = If I remove the "xorg.conf" file, the message about type1 goes away, but it still won't load the ati drivers. I'm at a loss. Where do I go to get my X back? I mean where in the documentation, of course, but I'm open to other suggestions. ++ kevin -- Kevin O'Gorman, PhD
Re: [gentoo-user] x11-base/xorg-server-1.5.3-r5 with x11-drivers/ati-drivers-8.552-r2 -- file conflict
On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:57:32 -0700 Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > Summary: X is hosed. > A couple of weeks back, I made the transition to the current versions of xorg-server and ati-drivers, i.e. the versions in the message subject. I had to do a bit of work with xorg.conf before all was good. If I recall details, keyboard and mouse weren't working and, after correcting that, fonts weren't being found. All is now working fine. Below is my xorg.conf. Hope it helps. Regards, David ### Begin xorg.conf ### Section "ServerFlags" Option "AllowEmptyInput" "false" EndSection Section "Files" FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/util" FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/encodings" FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/misc" FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/corefonts" FontPath "/usr/local/share/fonts" FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/default" FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/Type1" FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/100dpi" FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/75dpi" EndSection ### End xorg.conf ###
