Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

Auzern · 2011-01-11 09:39:57

I have installed Arch Linux quite a few weeks ago; but I'm still trying my best to install the nividia display driver for my graphics card (nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400).

I have read up all the documentations and I still find it hard to do this task.

When I used the terminal and executed the NVIDIA-Linux-x86-94.43.01-pkg1.run file without any window manager running, I get this problem:

ERROR: Unable to determine the version of the kernel sources located in '/lib/modules/2.6.35-ARCH/build'. Please make sure you have installed the kernel source files for your kernel and that they are properly configured; on Red Hat Linux systems, for example, be sure you have the 'kernel-source' or 'kernel-devel' RPM installed. If you know the correct kernel source files are installed, you may specify the kernel source path with the '--kernel-source-path' command line option.
ERROR: Installation has failed. Please see the file '/var/log/nvidia-installer.log' for details. You may find suggestions on fixing installation problems in the README available on the Linux driver download page at www.nvidia.com.

Now I'm using Arch Linux Kernel 2.6.35 and I have used this link to read how to get the source.
But where am I suppose to put it now? I do not want to change the kernel. I just want the nVidia installer to identify that there is a kernel source so that it can install.
This is a very old driver. Since now I have the nVidia driver installation package and also the kernel source can anyone please help me out with installing my graphics card driver?
Thanks in advance.

Mr Green · 2011-01-11 10:04:52

Why not use nvidia packages from repos for your card?

thoffmeyer · 2011-01-11 11:14:39

^^ Yeah, just install the nvidia-96xx package.

Only reason to do it that way, is if you use your own custom kernel, and want to build them by hand like I do.

Last edited by thoffmeyer (2011-01-11 11:15:07)

ngoonee · 2011-01-11 11:59:23

thoffmeyer wrote:

^^ Yeah, just install the nvidia-96xx package.
Only reason to do it that way, is if you use your own custom kernel, and want to build them by hand like I do.

There's no reason you can't use those packages even if with your own custom kernel, perhaps from abs.

Auzern · 2011-01-11 13:23:33

Thanks for the reply everyone. That was very helpful.
Now I have finally gone step by step and installed a lot of packages including the xorg and mesa and also libgl.
But when I finally install the driver by using this command:

# pacman -S nvidia-96xx
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...
:: nvidia-96xx-utils and libgl are in conflict. Remove libgl? [y/N] y
error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: ati-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: intel-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: mach64-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: mga-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: nouveau-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: r128-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: savage-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: sis-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: tdfx-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: unichrome-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2

And when I type the command to remove libgl, I get something different:

# pacman -R libgl
checking dependencies...
error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: ati-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: dcompmgr-git: requires libgl
:: intel-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: mach64-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: mesa: requires libgl
:: mga-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: mplayer: requires libgl
:: nouveau-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: qt: requires libgl
:: r128-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: savage-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: sis-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: tdfx-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: tuxracer: requires libgl
:: unichrome-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: xorg-utils: requires libgl

I am confused at the moment. What am I suppose to do to install the driver when this libgl is always conflicting?

TigTex · 2011-01-11 13:50:18

You are supposed to remove libgl (just say YES).
If that doesn't work, exceptionaly do this:
pacman -Rd libgl
pacman -S nvidia96-xx

make sure your system is up to date... pacman -Syu before (the last kernel is 2.6.36 and you still have 2.6.35...)

Last edited by TigTex (2011-01-11 13:51:32)

Auzern · 2011-01-11 14:17:35

^Thanks a lot. That installs the nVidia-96xx driver. But I still feel no difference. I'm using openbox window manager and everything still feels the same. I don't think that my video card drivers are loading at start up otherwise I would feel a difference. The resoultion is still the same and everything else.
How do I check that it really works or How do I include the command at boot up?

Julius2 · 2011-01-11 14:21:53

If you want to check if your graphics drivers are loading up properly, check /var/log/Xorg.0.log and pastebin it if you are uncertain. It should have messages about NVIDIA stuff loading. If it doesn't, you might need to specify your driver in xorg.conf.

Auzern · 2011-01-11 14:32:05

Thanks for the reply, Julius2. I just checked my /var/log/Xorg.0.log and searched for nVidia.
I got this:

[21.609] (EE) Failed to initialize GLX extension (Compatible NVIDIA X driver not found)

I guess I don't have some GLX extension. If that is not the case then how do I add my compatible NVIDIA X driver at boot up?

Auzern · 2011-01-11 15:11:15

I just used modprobe nvidia command and I get this result:

FATAL: Error inserting nvidia (/lib/modules/2.6.35-ARCH/kernel/drivers/video/nvidia.ko): No such device

I guess something is wrong. I cannot figure out anything

Mr Green · 2011-01-11 16:06:48

post output of

pacman -Qi nvidia

and

pacman -Qi pacman

Ramses de Norre · 2011-01-11 16:15:47

Auzern wrote:

Thanks for the reply everyone. That was very helpful.
Now I have finally gone step by step and installed a lot of packages including the xorg and mesa and also libgl.
But when I finally install the driver by using this command:
# pacman -S nvidia-96xx
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...
:: nvidia-96xx-utils and libgl are in conflict. Remove libgl? [y/N] y
error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: ati-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: intel-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: mach64-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: mga-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: nouveau-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: r128-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: savage-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: sis-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: tdfx-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: unichrome-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
And when I type the command to remove libgl, I get something different:
# pacman -R libgl
checking dependencies...
error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: ati-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: dcompmgr-git: requires libgl
:: intel-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: mach64-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: mesa: requires libgl
:: mga-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: mplayer: requires libgl
:: nouveau-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: qt: requires libgl
:: r128-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: savage-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: sis-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: tdfx-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: tuxracer: requires libgl
:: unichrome-dri: requires libgl=7.8.2
:: xorg-utils: requires libgl
I am confused at the moment. What am I suppose to do to install the driver when this libgl is always conflicting?

Why do you have packages for ati, intel, sis, ... graphics cards installed? Also, forcing the removal of libgl as was suggested might not be a good thing to do, you should probably uninstall those packages which you don't need after which you'll be able to uninstall libgl.

I hope you don't get in trouble now because by -Rd'ing libgl you've probably broken dependencies on your system which may give hiccups eventually.

Dogmeat · 2011-01-11 16:25:14

@Mr Green: He installed nvidia-96xx so "pacman -Qi nvidia" would show him an error.

@Ramses de Norre: Since libgl (/usr/lib/libGL.so) is provided by nvidia-96xx-utils this dependency is satisfied.

Auzern · 2011-01-11 16:58:02

Mr Green wrote:

post output of
pacman -Qi nvidia
and
pacman -Qi pacman

For nvidia:

# pacman -Qi nvidia-96xx
Name : nvidia-96xx
Version : 96.43.19-1
URL : http://www.nvidia.com/
Licenses : custom
Groups : None
Provides : None
Depends On : kernel26>=2.6.35 kernel26<2.6.36 nvidia-96xx-utils
Optional Deps : None
Required By : None
Conflicts With : nvidia nvidia-173xx
Replaces : None
Installed Size : 5320.00 K
Packager : Ionut Biru <ibiru@archlinux.org>
Architecture : i686
Build Date : Wed 03 Nov 2010 04:12:41 PM CET
Install Date : Tue 11 Jan 2011 08:54:58 PM CET
Install Reason : Explicitly installed
Install Script : Yes
Description : NVIDIA drivers for kernel26, 96xx branch.

For pacman:

# pacman -Qi pacman
Name : pacman
Version : 3.4.1-1
URL : http://www.archlinux.org/pacman/
Licenses : GPL
Groups : base
Provides : None
Depends On : bash libarchive>=2.7.1 libfetch>=2.25 pacman-mirrorlist
Optional Deps : fakeroot: for makepkg usage as normal user
curl: for rankmirrors usage
Required By : aif package-query yaourt
Conflicts With : None
Replaces : None
Installed Size : 2244.00 K
Packager : Dan McGee <dan@archlinux.org>
Architecture : i686
Build Date : Sat 04 Sep 2010 03:12:12 AM CEST
Install Date : Wed 03 Nov 2010 06:22:48 PM CET
Install Reason : Explicitly installed
Install Script : Yes
Description : A library-based package manager with dependency support

Mr Green · 2011-01-11 16:58:42

Dogmeat wrote:

@Mr Green: He installed nvidia-96xx so "pacman -Qi nvidia" would show him an error.

Not looking at error looking at version, and just checking to make sure system is up to date

Mr Green · 2011-01-11 17:00:31

Pacman may be the problem update

pacman -Syyu

At least we will be more able to help

Auzern · 2011-01-11 17:01:17

Dogmeat wrote:

@Mr Green: He installed nvidia-96xx so "pacman -Qi nvidia" would show him an error.
@Ramses de Norre: Since libgl (/usr/lib/libGL.so) is provided by nvidia-96xx-utils this dependency is satisfied.

I typed "pacman -Qi nvidia-96xx" and posted the results.
Yes, and if I try to install libgl then it says it will remove nvidia-96xx-utils with which even the nvidia driver essentials will go away.
So I guess I should let it stay the way it is.
Now after all this. I tried installing it from the scrip (*.run) file too and it still says that the kernel source is not found.

TigTex · 2011-01-11 17:01:25

It's not up to date. Check his kernel and pacman version... are old versions...
Please change your mirror (to mirrors.kernel.org for example) and run pacman -Syyu

Auzern · 2011-01-11 17:04:33

Mr Green wrote:

Pacman may be the problem update
pacman -Syyu
At least we will be more able to help

I just typed in that command, and this is what I get:

# pacman -Syyu
:: Synchronizing package databases...
core 35.6K 33.0K/s 00:00:01 [##############################] 100%
extra 478.4K 66.3K/s 00:00:07 [##############################] 100%
community 393.8K 48.8K/s 00:00:08 [##############################] 100%
archlinuxfr 25.5K 35.8K/s 00:00:01 [##############################] 100%
:: Starting full system upgrade...
warning: fbpanel: local (6.1.491svn-1) is newer than community (6.1-2)
warning: vte: local (0.26.2-1) is newer than extra (0.26.1-1)
there is nothing to do

Mr Green · 2011-01-11 17:07:10

It may well be your mirrors are not up to date, certainly if that pacman package is installed then it is out of date

This may have nothing to do with your problem but will certainly help us [and you]

What does

pacman -Ss pacman

give?

Dogmeat · 2011-01-11 17:07:41

Mr Green wrote:

Not looking at error looking at version, and just checking to make sure system is up to date

But pacman -Qi nvidia would show him "error: package "nvidia" not found" on his system because he installed nvidia-96xx.

Once again, he didn't install nvidia package, but nvidia-96xx. The right command is pacman -Q nvidia-96xx (or pacman -Qi for more information).

Mr Green · 2011-01-11 17:08:32

Ok I will bow out of this thread as it will only complicate the issue

Auzern · 2011-01-11 17:14:35

Auzern wrote:

Dogmeat wrote:
@Mr Green: He installed nvidia-96xx so "pacman -Qi nvidia" would show him an error.
@Ramses de Norre: Since libgl (/usr/lib/libGL.so) is provided by nvidia-96xx-utils this dependency is satisfied.
I typed "pacman -Qi nvidia-96xx" and posted the results.
Yes, and if I try to install libgl then it says it will remove nvidia-96xx-utils with which even the nvidia driver essentials will go away.
So I guess I should let it stay the way it is.
Now after all this. I tried installing it from the scrip (*.run) file too and it still says that the kernel source is not found.

How do I change the mirrors? Which file should I edit. I'm sorry but I'm very new to Arch.

By the way "pacman -Ss pacman" gives this:

# pacman -Ss pacman
core/pacman 3.4.1-1 (base) [installed]
A library-based package manager with dependency support
core/pacman-mirrorlist 20100825-1 [installed]
Arch Linux mirror list for use by pacman
extra/namcap 2.7-1
A Pacman package analyzer
extra/srcpac 0.7-1
The pacman from-source wrapper
community/pacman-contrib 3.4.0-1
Utilities for use with the pacman package manager
community/pacpan 2010.09.16.1-1
A tool for creating Perl packages for Pacman from CPAN.
community/pacupdate 0.1.1-4
A simple update notifier for Arch Linux (pacman)
community/powerpill 2010.08.24.1-1
A wrapper for pacman that speeds up package retrieval by using aria2c for
concurrent/segmented downloads.
community/xpacman 0.11-5
X pacman game (use z x / ' q keys)
community/xpacman2 1.002-3
another X pacman game
archlinuxfr/pacman-color 3.4.2-1
Command-line frontend for libalpm aka pacman with color patch
archlinuxfr/repacman 0.98-1 [installed]
A tool for producing a pacman package from software's existing installation
archlinuxfr/yaourt 0.9.5.1-1 [installed]
A pacman wrapper with extended features and AUR support

Inxsible · 2011-01-11 17:29:13

Change your mirror and then try

pacman -Syu

again.

If you don't know how to change mirrors. go to the wiki and search for pacman. Read through the page and you will see. Here at Arch we expect users to do their own research before posting in the forums. It will help you understand your own system much better than someone else telling you everything and you blindly following it.

lucak3 · 2011-01-11 17:34:03

You need to edit /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist and set a different mirror, as the one you use isn't updated atleast since some days.
Open it (remember that you need root access) and uncomment the mirrors under Any section.
Then issue again pacman -Syyu
BTW: as said before, why do you have all the open source drivers installed? It's not only useless, but probably the source of this problem, as you're probably still using nouveau.

PS: Are you sure you card is suported by the 96-xx version of nvidia drivers? As it's very old, I fear you would need 73-xx version (no more supported)

Arch Linux

#1 2011-01-11 09:39:57

Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#2 2011-01-11 10:04:52

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#3 2011-01-11 11:14:39

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#4 2011-01-11 11:59:23

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#5 2011-01-11 13:23:33

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#6 2011-01-11 13:50:18

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#7 2011-01-11 14:17:35

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#8 2011-01-11 14:21:53

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#9 2011-01-11 14:32:05

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#10 2011-01-11 15:11:15

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#11 2011-01-11 16:06:48

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#12 2011-01-11 16:15:47

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#13 2011-01-11 16:25:14

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#14 2011-01-11 16:58:02

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#15 2011-01-11 16:58:42

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#16 2011-01-11 17:00:31

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#17 2011-01-11 17:01:17

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#18 2011-01-11 17:01:25

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#19 2011-01-11 17:04:33

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#20 2011-01-11 17:07:10

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#21 2011-01-11 17:07:41

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#22 2011-01-11 17:08:32

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#23 2011-01-11 17:14:35

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#24 2011-01-11 17:29:13

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

#25 2011-01-11 17:34:03

Re: Installing nVidia Geforce 2 MX 400

Board footer