Re: nvidia building from source (2.6.15)
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 10:24:19AM -0800, Sebastian Haase wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm running kernel version 2.6.15 from backports (2.6.15-1-amd64-k8-smp)
> Then I tried to build the nvidia kernel module after dpkg -i
> linux-headers-2.6.15-1...(also from backports)
> when trying to build the nvidia-kernel-source (following the instructions
> in /usr/share/doc/nvidia-kernel-source
> I got: cannot open perl script
> "/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.15-1/scripts/setlocalversion"
> The "scripts" folder seems not to exist in linux-headers anymore (vs. for
> older kernels the package was called: kernel-headers)
>
> Then I tried the module-assistant: it first went all well until
> "(EE) Failed to load module "nvidia" (module does not exist, 0)
> in /var/log/XFree86.0.log
> Trying a manual "modprobe nvidia" says:
> root@omx:/lib/modules# modprobe nvidia
> nvidia: Unknown symbol register_ioctl32_conversion
> nvidia: Unknown symbol unregister_ioctl32_conversion
> FATAL: Error inserting nvidia
> (/lib/modules/2.6.15-1-amd64-k8-smp/nvidia/nvidia.
> ko): Unknown symbol in module, or unknown parameter (see dmesg)
>
> (I was wondering were the nvidia-glx-ia32 might come in - but it did not fix
> the problem...)
>
> Then I decided to go for a new version of the nvidia - 7174 from sarge might
> be rather old anyway ...
> so I googled and found
> http://people.debian.org/~rdonald/nvidia/dists/unstable/nvidia-graphics-drivers/binary-amd64/
>
> BAD idea !! In deselect it now complains that libc6 needs >= 2.3.5-1
> So: I hope I can undo this ...
>
> Any hint on where I can get a working (new) nvidia module for (any) rather new
> kernel !?
Perhaps you can rebuild the newer nvidia package. Not sure. Then again
it might depend on a newer debhelper version or something. You can try
it though with the source package from etch/sid, and doing:
dpkg-source -x nvidia*dsc
cd nvidia-...
dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -us -uc -b
Then install the resulting packages with dpkg -i
I actually though 7174-3 worked with 2.6.15 though. Maybe that is x86
only though. Or maybe amd64 doesn't have the same version as sarge i386
does. Worth checking actually.
Len Sorensen
Reply to: