nvidia and xorg conflict with fresh arch 0.7 base install

Hi,

I have found a problem with nvidia and xorg after a fresh arch 0.7 base 
install -- you can install nvidia and then xorg (by force) but you cannot 
install xorg and then nvidia (even with force).

If I install nvidia before xorg, then pacman merely complains that 
/usr/lib/libGL.so and /usr/lib/libGL.so.1 already exist, and so I can just 
force the installation with pacman -Sf xorg (after of course copying the 
nvidia versions to a safe place so I can return them after -- btw, is there 
another way of installing a package and leaving existing files in place?)

If I install xorg before nvidia then I get the following (note this is the 
log of a second attempt and thus an upgrade not an install, but I recall 
it's the same error output):

:: nvidia-1.0.8174-2: is up to date.  Upgrade anyway? [Y/n]
Targets: nvidia-1.0.8174-2

Total Package Size:   5.9 MB

Proceed with upgrade? [Y/n]
checking package integrity... done.
loading package data... done.
upgrading nvidia... done.
IMPORTANT
==> In order to use the software, you have to agree to NVIDIA's license 
located in
==> /usr/share/doc/NVIDIA_GLX-1.0/LICENSE
==> If you don't, please remove this package (pacman -R nvidia)

Re: nvidia and xorg conflict with fresh arch 0.7 base install

* Stew Heckenberg (whazaaaaahp@...) wrote:
> ==> Other installation errors can be found at: /var/log/nvidia-installer.log
> 
Try to attach this file here, maybe the libGL.la is just a fake and the
real problem lies elsewhere.

BR,
	Benny

_______________________________________________
tur-users mailing list
tur-users@...
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/tur-users

AUR Package Count

We are at the point where the AUR's package count is
going to eclipse that of official repos. (We're about 30 packages away).

Credit for the success of this remarkable and unique project goes to no
small group. The community at large is the driving force behind the AUR.
Without their thousands of contributions, this would simply not be
possible.

-S

PS: dev blog post will be made soon

_______________________________________________
tur-users mailing list
tur-users@...
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/tur-users

Re: nvidia and xorg conflict with fresh arch 0.7 baseinstall

>Try to attach this file here, maybe the libGL.la is just a fake and the
>real problem lies elsewhere.

Attached are 3 files: libGL, nvidia and nvidia-installer.log.

"libGL" is the output of "ls -al /usr/lib/libGL*" after installing the 
nvidia package  but before installing the xorg package. "nvidia" is an 
attempt at upgrading/installing the nvidia package after having installed 
the xorg package. The log file is the one mentioned by the error message for 
the nvidia package.

The fact that the nvidia installer (what I assume is run when the nvidia 
package is installed) looks for a libGL.la file only if xorg has been 
installed. If xorg has not been installed then nvidia installs without any 
problem, and xorg merely complains about existing libGL.so and libGL.so.1 
files when it gets installed (because they were installed by the nvidia 
package).

_______________________________________________
tur-users mailing list
tur-users@...
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/tur-users

Re: AUR Package Count

On 1/3/06, Simo Leone <simo@...> wrote:
> We are at the point where the AUR's package count is
> going to eclipse that of official repos. (We're about 30 packages away).
>
> Credit for the success of this remarkable and unique project goes to no
> small group. The community at large is the driving force behind the AUR.
> Without their thousands of contributions, this would simply not be
> possible.

I installed Ubuntu on my parents' computer over the weekend (namely
for some nice free software that my mom's been wanting to use) and I
say, what a way to start the new year. :)  I was impressed (yet again)
with the ease of installation and use with Ubuntu.  With my time being
short these days, I was thinking of installing it on my home computer.
 However, my mom asked if she could see my program, which isn't in
Ubuntu's repositories.  So I tried getting the .deb for Debian and, of
course, it didn't work because of dependencies.  I ended up just
installing the source because creating .deb's for Debian or Ubuntu is
crazy hard.

So really, in the end, Arch is the easier distro for me because of its
package management, due in no small part to the AUR!  Thanks and kudos
to the community!

Perhaps a bit OT; forgive me. :)

Warmly,
Andrew

--

Re: AUR Package Count

On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 10:12 -0500, Andrew Conkling wrote:
> However, my mom asked if she could see my program, which isn't in
> Ubuntu's repositories.  So I tried getting the .deb for Debian and, of
> course, it didn't work because of dependencies.  I ended up just
> installing the source because creating .deb's for Debian or Ubuntu is
> crazy hard.

Grab .dsc, .diff.gz and .orig.tar.gz, onpack it with dpkg-source -x, go
inside the resulting directory, run dpkg-buildpackage and see what you
need to install, install it and adjust where required to match ubuntu
packages ;)

Debian and Ubuntu are not so hard when a debian/ dir or a source package
exists. Creating a package from scratch however... I think that's the
reason for becoming an arch developer instead of a Debian developer :)

Re: AUR Package Count

On 1/3/06, Jan de Groot <jan@...> wrote:
>
> Grab .dsc, .diff.gz and .orig.tar.gz, onpack it with dpkg-source -x, go
> inside the resulting directory, run dpkg-buildpackage and see what you
> need to install, install it and adjust where required to match ubuntu
> packages ;)
>

and then they complain that Slackware's way of building packages is
complicated :P

--
Martin Lefebvre
eMail: dadexter@...

WWW: https://sigterm.homeunix.com
Registered Linux #349269

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GAT dpu s:-- a- C+++ UL++++ P-- L++++ E--- W+++ N++ o-- K- w---
O- M-- V-- PS PE Y PGP-- t+++ 5- X R- tv++ b+ DI-- D+
G-- e h++ r++ y**
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Re: AUR Package Count

> So really, in the end, Arch is the easier distro for me because of its
> package management, due in no small part to the AUR!  Thanks and kudos
> to the community!

On my desktop machine I run Arch Linux, but on my laptop I use Ubuntu
as I prefer less hacking and less updating there. However, I also
missed having full control over rare or custom packages using the
convenient makepkg/pacman tools. My solution was to compile and
install pacman on Ubuntu, worked like a charm! 

The only downside is having to use -d (skip dependencies check) while
building/installing, cause pacman doesn't interface with the Debian
specific stuff. But well I'm not sure if I'd want that anyway. It's
easy enough to keep track of manually for a few things installed
through pacman, and pacman operates nicely fast this way.

Kind regards,
Bjørn Lindeijer
_______________________________________________
tur-users mailing list
tur-users <at> archlinux.org
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/tur-users

Re: nvidia and xorg conflict with fresh arch 0.7 baseinstall

  The problem can be found in the nvidia-install.log:

The compiler used to compile the kernel was gcc 3.4; the current 
compiler is gcc 4.0.

  If this is a fresh install it probably just means you haven't upgraded 
your kernel yet. Upgrade your kernel first and everything should work 
fine. I am guessing that installing nvidia before xorg was not working 
either, just there were no errors evident/noticed.

  Which is kind of a problem with the nvidia installer I would say -- it 
doesn't make it very clear that the package was not installed correctly.

Andrew.

Stew Heckenberg wrote:
>> Try to attach this file here, maybe the libGL.la is just a fake and the
>> real problem lies elsewhere.
> 
> Attached are 3 files: libGL, nvidia and nvidia-installer.log.
> 
> "libGL" is the output of "ls -al /usr/lib/libGL*" after installing the 
> nvidia package  but before installing the xorg package. "nvidia" is an 
> attempt at upgrading/installing the nvidia package after having 
> installed the xorg package. The log file is the one mentioned by the 
> error message for the nvidia package.
> 
> The fact that the nvidia installer (what I assume is run when the nvidia 
> package is installed) looks for a libGL.la file only if xorg has been 
> installed. If xorg has not been installed then nvidia installs without 

Re: nvidia and xorg conflict with fresh arch 0.7 base install

>Try running it without X running.
>
>--
>Strat

X wasn't running. I guess the error message suggests that just in case.