nvidia doesn't work on 3.x kernels

Hi,

I tried using the backported nvidia non-free packages with the 3.1.x
kernel in backports (using dkms) and it didn't work. I'm guessing
version 275.xx is too old for 3.x kernels. Can the newer nvidia stuff
be backported if possible?

Thanks

Andres

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-backports-request <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAH=dYrH2MtBBSeiFeeXsFS126i8zkRYvyUu47nqJ2M+WGrExVQ <at> mail.gmail.com

Re: nvidia doesn't work on 3.x kernels

On Ma, 31 ian 12, 22:16:12, Andres Cimmarusti wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I tried using the backported nvidia non-free packages with the 3.1.x
> kernel in backports (using dkms) and it didn't work. I'm guessing
> version 275.xx is too old for 3.x kernels. Can the newer nvidia stuff
> be backported if possible?

Works for me (3.1 and now 3.2). What errors do you get?

Kind regards,
Andrei
--

-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic

Re: samba (2:3.6.1-3) squeeze-backports request

Quoting Jelle de Jong (jelledejong <at> powercraft.nl):

> Do you think samba 3.6 will make it to backports/squeeze before FOSDEM?
> (upcomming weekend) Then we have something to celebrate.

I'm waiting for ctdb backport to be approved first as it's needed to
build samba 3.6. It's hard for me to put pressure on backports
ftpmasters....

Re: nvidia doesn't work on 3.x kernels

On 2012-02-01 04:16, Andres Cimmarusti wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I tried using the backported nvidia non-free packages with the 3.1.x
> kernel in backports (using dkms) and it didn't work. I'm guessing
> version 275.xx is too old for 3.x kernels. Can the newer nvidia stuff
> be backported if possible?

Please make a full bug report in the BTS and I'll take a look.

Andreas

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-backports-request <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4F28ED82.5040502 <at> abeckmann.de

Debian Backports are inconsistent - any ideas ?

Hello,

The Debian Backports repo are inconsistent (read: break dependencies).

Example 1:
New Backported kernel broke NVIDIA drivers
Example 2:
New Backported kernel broke OpenVZ and Xen kernels
Example 3:
New Backported kernel broke VirtualBox (stable) -- users still can
install another ver. (from testing?)
Example 4:
New backported VirtualBox broke libvirt (stable libvirt only supports
stable vbox)

The big idea is this:
Backported stuff introduces new inconsistency.
I realize this cannot be tested to the same degree as Debian "stable",
nor it should be, but...
...is there a way to warn users somehow ?
Or at least list potential dangers ?

In future - the stacks (Example Virtualization stack: kernel +
virtualbox + libvirt + GNS3 +...) will become more complex, so we
should at least think about warning users.
...Or develop a way to upgrade one such "stack" at a time, instead of
a single package.

--

-- 
-Alexey Eromenko "Technologov"

Re: Debian Backports are inconsistent - any ideas ?

On 02/01/12 17:10, Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The Debian Backports repo are inconsistent (read: break dependencies).
>
> Example 1:
> New Backported kernel broke NVIDIA drivers
> Example 2:
> New Backported kernel broke OpenVZ and Xen kernels
> Example 3:
> New Backported kernel broke VirtualBox (stable) -- users still can
> install another ver. (from testing?)
> Example 4:
> New backported VirtualBox broke libvirt (stable libvirt only supports
> stable vbox)
>
> The big idea is this:
> Backported stuff introduces new inconsistency.
> I realize this cannot be tested to the same degree as Debian "stable",
> nor it should be, but...
> ...is there a way to warn users somehow ?
> Or at least list potential dangers ?
>
> In future - the stacks (Example Virtualization stack: kernel +
> virtualbox + libvirt + GNS3 +...) will become more complex, so we
> should at least think about warning users.
> ...Or develop a way to upgrade one such "stack" at a time, instead of
> a single package.
>

Re: nvidia doesn't work on 3.x kernels

Sorry, you guys are right. It works fine with kernels in backports.

However It keeps failing with dkms using a 3.0.18 kernel compiled from
pristine upstream sources.
While installing all the nvidia packages (and having linux-headers
installed as well), dkms simply skips the 3.0.18 kernel and says no
sources are available. But I was able to compile the nvidia kernel
module using module assistant

I'm trying to use the longterm stable 3.0.x series for stability.

I guess this isn't really a bug that affects backports but perhaps
only an annoyance for those who prefer to compile their own kernels.

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-backports-request <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAH=dYrHOnG78mt5zNfg+frdncXFuAAOy-jsDjFCOAUVj2ju_vg <at> mail.gmail.com

Re: Debian Backports are inconsistent - any ideas ?

Re: Debian Backports are inconsistent - any ideas ?

Jan Ingvoldstad schrieb am Mittwoch, den 01. Februar 2012:

> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 08:21, dE . <de.techno <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > This's expected. I take installing form backports itself as a warning.
> >
> 
> Unfortunately, the OP has a point – this warning is missing from
> http://backports.debian.org/.
> 
> If I may use the the collective "we": we should make this abundantly clear,
> if it is something to be expected, it cannot be implicit.
feel free to provide a wording.

Alex
-- 
Alexander Wirt, formorer <at> formorer.de 
CC99 2DDD D39E 75B0 B0AA  B25C D35B BC99 BC7D 020A

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-backports-request <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120201141302.GF4560 <at> hawking.credativ.lan

Re: Debian Backports are inconsistent - any ideas ?