catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

DonVla · 2009-02-22 00:01:51

from
http://repos.archlinux.org/viewvc.cgi/c … iew=markup
the changelog says:

broken for x86_64/is prelinked to
/usr/lib64 we don't allow

is the package itself broken (non-functional) or is this an arch policy thing that does not allow to use /usr/lib64?
actually, i haven´t tried to build the catalyst package, because i thought it is generally broken for x86_64.

vlad

tomk · 2009-02-22 00:22:34

We don't use /usr/lib64, so the upstream package from AMD does not work on a normal Arch install. Ugly hacks can be applied, but are not compatible with the Arch approach. Here's the word from the maintainer: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch … 10173.html.

Previous versions of catalyst worked as expected on 64-bit systems - I used 8.11 and 8.12 myself for a while (although I'm on the xorg radeon driver now).

DonVla · 2009-02-22 00:35:09

oh, it seems that 9.{1,2} does not work on arch64 (or general non-multilib system) at all.
that´s pretty poor support from amd.
btw, how´s the radeon driver compared to catalyst?
does xv overlay work properly?

vlad

krychle · 2009-02-23 19:19:53

hello,

can someone ask for this issue on Phoronix.com forums (maybe here> http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15544 )? I think user Bridgman is directly from AMD Linux support team. I'm not good english speaker, and I don't fully understand where is a catch. Also, I think Arch64 is not only one distro which don't uses /usr/lib64 directory, so how other distros are fixing this?

thx

kraftman13 · 2009-02-24 11:22:08

Sadly, as far as I know they only support few distros...

DonVla · 2009-02-24 12:17:43

kraftman13 wrote:

Sadly, as far as I know they only support few distros...

wtf???
this should be a linux driver, not a certain distro driver!
actually, i'm starting to regret that i bought an ati card.
i'm still using the 8.12 driver and it works ok, but it's still not as good as the nvidia driver was.
however, they changed some major issues in the 9.x drivers, but now this dumb thing happened!

toki · 2009-02-24 23:17:46

I just installed 9.2 beta from AUR. A slight modification was needed to correct a symbol-warning (looked like the ATI devs tried to account for this, though their #if's don't seem quite right), but I don't get any error whatsoever regarding /usr/lib64 (which doesn't exist on my system).

Now it works flawlessly (flawless in the fglrx-sense of the word ).

Last edited by toki (2009-02-24 23:23:12)

kraftman13 · 2009-02-25 09:25:46

toki wrote:

I just installed 9.2 beta from AUR. A slight modification was needed to correct a symbol-warning (looked like the ATI devs tried to account for this, though their #if's don't seem quite right), but I don't get any error whatsoever regarding /usr/lib64 (which doesn't exist on my system).
Now it works flawlessly (flawless in the fglrx-sense of the word ).

Can you post what modification you did? Are you using 64bit Arch or 32bit?

AndyRTR · 2009-02-25 10:47:35

Everybody playing here with the beta drivers please remember that it's not allowed to publish the beta source and it's not allowed to modify their sources in any way (same for the stable driver)!

I have access to the beta drivers but won't comment on any issues not even on performance changes. I had to sign a license agreement before getting access to the drivers and some place where (not much) discussion happens.

We are going to remove the beta packages from AUR to avoid any license issues for ArchLinux.

kraftman13 · 2009-02-25 19:50:28

Any chance we can have catalyst 9.2 running on 64bit Arch?

Last edited by kraftman13 (2009-02-25 19:50:53)

toad · 2009-02-25 20:02:19

DonVla wrote:

actually, i'm starting to regret that i bought an ati card.

Yep - same here. Built myself a beautiful system and thought ATI was the way to go with a more open source approach than Nvidia. What a con!

kensai · 2009-02-25 20:16:14

kraftman13 wrote:

Any chance we can have catalyst 9.2 running on 64bit Arch?

As much as I would like for this to be made possible, in the current state of things, it looks like not. But we are working on a solution, soon to come. Read arch-dev-public regularly for announcement.

Last edited by kensai (2009-02-25 20:17:15)

DonVla · 2009-02-25 20:25:35

i got catalyst up and running on my system.
see this post:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 79#p504979
for
* catalyst: apply the "flush_tlb_page.patch" from arch svn
* catalyst-utils: link the *so files from /usr/lib to /usr/lib64 (i think this is only needed for /usr/lib/dri)
works here stable so far (for one day now).

vlad

ps: there are also the PKGBUILDs i used

Last edited by DonVla (2009-02-25 20:25:55)

DonVla · 2009-02-25 20:30:07

AndyRTR wrote:

Everybody playing here with the beta drivers please remember that it's not allowed to publish the beta source and it's not allowed to modify their sources in any way (same for the stable driver)!

isn't even allowed to apply patches like the flush_tlb_page.patch from svn?
afais this patch is apllied to the i686 package.

vlad

Kilz · 2009-03-05 01:13:32

So, anyone that has ati graphics and running Arch on 64bit hardware is sol because of refusal to make a symlink to a folder? Please excuse me, but this sounds a bit on the insane side. This ranks right up there with Debian's insanity imho.

Last edited by Kilz (2009-03-05 01:15:17)

kensai · 2009-03-05 01:18:05

Kilz wrote:

So, anyone that has ati graphics and running Arch on 64bit hardware is sol because of refusal to make a symlink to a folder? Please excuse me, but this sounds a bit on the insane side. This ranks right up there with Debian's insanity imho.

In fact no, it is our way to maintain a clean non-multilib environment. So if you want a multilib environment, use another distributions, because then Arch Linux is not for you. You have to comply with the philosophies of the OS you are using. You know, I have received a lot of emails of people applauding our decision with catalyst.

Kilz · 2009-03-05 01:31:27

kensai wrote:

Kilz wrote:
So, anyone that has ati graphics and running Arch on 64bit hardware is sol because of refusal to make a symlink to a folder? Please excuse me, but this sounds a bit on the insane side. This ranks right up there with Debian's insanity imho.
In fact no, it is our way to maintain a clean non-multilib environment. So if you want a multilib environment, use another distributions, because then Arch Linux is not for you. You have to comply with the philosophies of the OS you are using. You know, I have received a lot of emails of people applauding our decision with catalyst.

No, I dont have to comply with the philosophies of the OS I am using. This is linux, this is open source. It also conflicts with the philosophy of Arch is User-centric. This isnt going to stop me from running the distro, or installing the drivers. But it is imho a sad thing that 64bit users are singled out for not having this package available to them as a compiled package.
Perhaps its escaped your notice. But it looks like the 64bit community as a whole doesnt follow the philosophies. There are quite a lot of multilib packages. Again, this imho ranks up there with Debian as a cutting off your nose to spite your face move.

Last edited by Kilz (2009-03-05 01:34:56)

kensai · 2009-03-05 01:45:52

Now you realized what I wanted, the user is free to do so, you have abs compile the package yourself and do the symlinking. FYI I did just that, I have the symlink in my system and am running the 9.2 driver.

But our philosophy does not permit us to do so officially, so what I was saying, if you have a problem with us following our principles well, you have choices. We work for the users, but we give the freedom to the user to do as they please if we won't officially because of our philosophies.

All in all, thanks for your opinion and I do understand your concern, but well, you are your own Arch Overlord.

Kilz · 2009-03-05 02:00:06

kensai wrote:

Now you realized what I wanted, the user is free to do so, you have abs compile the package yourself and do the symlinking. FYI I did just that, I have the symlink in my system and am running the 9.2 driver.
But our philosophy does not permit us to do so officially, so what I was saying, if you have a problem with us following our principles well, you have choices. We work for the users, but we give the freedom to the user to do as they please if we won't officially because of our philosophies.
All in all, thanks for your opinion and I do understand your concern, but well, you are your own Arch Overlord.

Thanks for saying that. I can understand some of why its like it is. Not that I agree with it. I installed Arch because of its freedom, after dealing with Ubuntu insanity for way to long.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-02-22 00:01:51

catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#2 2009-02-22 00:22:34

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#3 2009-02-22 00:35:09

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#4 2009-02-23 19:19:53

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#5 2009-02-24 11:22:08

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#6 2009-02-24 12:17:43

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#7 2009-02-24 23:17:46

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#8 2009-02-25 09:25:46

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#9 2009-02-25 10:47:35

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#10 2009-02-25 19:50:28

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#11 2009-02-25 20:02:19

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#12 2009-02-25 20:16:14

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#13 2009-02-25 20:25:35

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#14 2009-02-25 20:30:07

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#15 2009-03-05 01:13:32

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#16 2009-03-05 01:18:05

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#17 2009-03-05 01:31:27

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#18 2009-03-05 01:45:52

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

#19 2009-03-05 02:00:06

Re: catalyst 9.2 on x86_64

Board footer