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

nvidia-kernel package: compilation failure with 2.6.21



Hello.

I did a recent install of Debian etch on a system with an nVidia
graphics controller. I used module-assistant to install the nvidia
kernel module, and under kernel 2.6.18 from the install, that all
worked fine.

A few days later, I upgraded to kernel package 2.6.18.2-686 (from
lenny) to resolve a problem with the on-board audio controller:

 Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) High Definition Audio Controller (rev 01)

The kernel upgrade did indeed resolve the problem with the audio
controller, but it meant a re-install of the nvidia kernel module. I
tried to do that as follows:

 % aptitude install nvidia-kernel-common
 % module-assistant -i prepare
 % module-assistant a-i -t -f nvidia-kernel

However, the build failed. The crucial error seems to be this (from 
/var/cache/modass/nvidia-kernel-source.buildlog.2.6.21-2-686.1183784666):

----------------------------------------------------------------------
  LD [M]  /usr/src/modules/nvidia-kernel/nv/nvidia.o
  Building modules, stage 2.
  MODPOST 1 modules
FATAL: modpost: GPL-incompatible module nvidia.ko uses GPL-only symbol 'paravirt_ops'
make[4]: *** [__modpost] Error 1
make[3]: *** [modules] Error 2
make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-headers-2.6.21-2-686'
NVIDIA: left KBUILD.
nvidia.ko failed to build!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The compiler used was gcc-4.1 version 4.1.1 (the kernel seems to have
been compiled with 4.1.2), but the error-message seems to suggest that
the issue is in some sense legal rather than technical.

(There is a similar bug report---No. 430577---against the nvidia-graphics-drivers-legacy-71xx
package.)

Has anyone else encountered this problem, or does it come from some
stupidity on my part?  I could use the nvidia installer, I suppose,
but I'd really prefer to do things the Debian way. Does anyone know of
a workaround?

Thanks very much in advance,

Jim



Reply to: