On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:22 +0300, David Baron wrote:
> On Monday 08 May 2006 18:11, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:36 +0300, David Baron wrote:
> > > On Monday 08 May 2006 17:10, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:04 +0300, David Baron wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday 07 May 2006 23:17, H.S. wrote:
> > > > > > David Baron wrote:
> > > > > > > You may get the following on modules previously compiled against
> > > > > > > kernel sources:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kqemu and Nvidia's driver were hit by this. Easy enough to
> > > > > > > fix--recompile 'em.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I noticed this too. I am using nvidia module. I just did (after
> > > > > > booting in the new kernel version):
> > > > > > #> m-a auto-install nvidia
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and it seemed to have done the trick.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Nvidia driver I downloaded from Nvidia comes with its own .run
> > > > > file which does more than simply check and recompile the driver (too
> > > > > much actually for a repeat compile!). Would m-a "know" to run this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Other modules need to be made with various arguments pointing to
> > > > > kernel source directory, etc.
> > > >
> > > > m-a == Debian's Module Assistant.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it will get the stuff proper for the driver.
> > > >
> > > > Now the library links are taken care of by the nvidia-glx and
> > > > nvidia-glx-dev packages.
> > >
> > > Neither module effected was from a Debian package, however.
> > > Kqemu is "non-free" and made from source.
> > > The nvidia videa driver was downloaded from their site and as I said, it
> > > has its own installation program. (What is the difference between what is
> > > on Debian and theirs?)
> >
> > The Debian nVidia is a much easier and more updateable version. And you
> > get an integrated package for Debian for the drivers. ATIs stuff is
> > there too. Plus TONS of other modules, like wifi, crypto etc... ta boot.
>
> ATI stuff was why I went over to the Geforce.
I was just commenting that IF they can get ATIs crap to work properly
using m-a... you might consider using it.
I used to run a script I developed myself, to do everything exactly like
M-A does. When I explained what my script did... well an m-a maintainer
mentioned that Debian does it with many modules.
> > How long does it take for you to run your installer and get the proper
> > kernel compiled and/or then the proper headers for the nVidia module to
> > compile against, how many steps are there?
>
> Their installer is simple: run it with root privileges.
> 1. Checks for precompiled version on their ftp.
> 2. None? Compiles it
> 3. Places it in ..../drivers/video
> 4. Will modify xorg.conf to use this driver. Saves old file just in case
> 5. Voile.
The point is though:
This was the nVidia Modules and packages, are maintained and
kept track of by debconf. You don't have to re-run you installer
*JUST* to get the libc links back (should libc get updated) and
any real problems, are typically caught before the go into
incoming.
I remember last year or, nVidia updated the drivers and the installer
literally removed half of you libraries on your system. That was caught
by the nVidia package(s) maintainer(s) and never ruined any machine
except maybe the chroot environment.
> > Are you putting the module where it should go, according to Debian's
> > policy? If not, then you will always have cruft building up. Plus you'll
> > no longer have to worry if the installer puts the links in the proper
> > directories for the video libraries... and the recent changes to X.org
> > have also been included in compilation of the nVidia Module.
> > (hint: apt-get install module-assistant)
>
> I have it.
>
> > Using module-assistant (m-a is a shortname for module-assistant) for the
> > *CURRENT* Kernel you are running doing:
> >
> > m-a update ; m-a a-i nvidia
> >
> > Does the update, install of everything needed and compiles and installs
> > the resulting deb package file.
> >
> > Of course, the nvidia-glx and the nvidia-glx-dev will need to be
> > installed too.
>
> Are all these kept more up-to-date and better running than the manufacturer's
> module? I have heard recommendations for both sides of this.
All I can tell you, since I deprecated my script and switched to m-a, my
life has been much easier. Upgrades on nVidia versions are trival. Now
there is something else you should know, there is a Legacy version of
the nvidia source and glx packages... these are for GF2 and before
cards... that was a rude awakening (which was also when I started my own
script)
> > kqemu, isn't a kernel module... I am sorry I mislead you in any way on
> > that.
>
> kqemu IS a kernel module, .ko. Needs be compiled against kernel source and
> installed in .../drivers/misc.
Are we talking the same package? http://kqemu.sourceforge.net/
Which runs QEmu inside of it?
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/misc/qemu
And it does NOT need to be compiled against the Kernel SOURCE.
The "kernel-headers-2.6-<arch>" or "smp" added is all the you need. Same
goes for the nVidia drivers. They only need the Kernel Headers. No need
to compile your own kernel. There is really no reason to compile your
own kernel. Not even to compile *IN* modules for you exact hardware.
I stopped doing new kernels all the time when the 2.6 tree popped up in
Debian. Everything I was patching into the 2.4 kernel (using make-kpkg)
was already in the 2.6 tree.
The kernel is equivalently fast in mono or module modes. (I can
guarantee you'll *NEVER* be able to tell if it is faster or not) I have
been using Debian for quite a few years, in fact I am using an "8 year
old build" right now on an Athlon64 3500+, I just keep transferring the
image around and around and around. You could never do that with a
hard-compiled kernel.
Debian is all about EASE of maintenance, not making it hard to keep
things updated. It is why I keep coming back to Debian (and UBUNTU for
my friends and cow-orkers), its all about maint.
--
greg, greg@gregfolkert.net
The technology that is
Stronger, Better, Faster: Linux
Use Debian GNU/Linux, its a bazaar thing
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the
National Security Agency may have read this email
without warning, warrant, or notice, and certainly
without probable cause. They may do this without
any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no
recourse nor protection.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part