[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: when will nvidai-glx and nvidia-kernel-source hit etch?

On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 17:38 +0100, Lubos Vrbka wrote:
> hi,
> > After installing an appropriate gcc package to match your running
> > kernel, the nvidia-kernel-source package can successfully create an
> > nvidia-kernel-$FOO package to match your system. nvidia-glx cannot
> > install without an appropriate nvidia-kernel package (which is what
> > module-assistant creates, using a C compiler and nvidia-kernel-source)
> thanks for thorough description. however, i still don't get one thing. 
> you write that 'nvidia-glx cannot be installed without an appropriate 
> nvidia-kernel package'. but how is nvidia-glx created? i guess it's 
> necessary now to install unstable nvidia-glx package (because it's not 
> available in etch). or is it also somehow included in the m-a d-i nvidia 
> build (i guess this was also the original question of this thread)? 
> maybe i'm just braindead after a long day, but i don't understand this...

nvidia-glx is a package, created from the nvidia-graphics-drivers source
package. nvidia-graphics-drivers contains the binary .run files from
nvidia.com plus some scripting voodoo used in package creation.
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/nvidia-graphics-drivers shows
the four packages created from this source package.

"m-a a-i nvidia" does the following:
1) installs "build-essential" and "nvidia-kernel-source" and
"linux-headers-$(uname -r)"
2) runs the scripts provided by nvidia-kernel-source in order to create
nvidia-kernel-$(uname -r)
3) installs the newly created nvidia-kernel-$(uname -r)_
$NVIDIAVERSION.deb package

The "nvidia-glx" package depends on nvidia-kernel-$NVIDIAVERSION -
however, this package doesn't actually exist. It's a virtual package,
which is provided by nvidia-kernel-$(uname -r)_$NVIDIAVERSION.deb

Hence nvidia-glx won't install unless you run "m-a a-i nvidia" first, in
order to provide the kernel module package.

--Jo Shields

Reply to: