[solved] nvidia: requires linux<3.2

DarkVenger · 2012-01-24 21:13:46

rtfreedman wrote:

I don't get it -
pacman forces me to upgrade to a knowingly not working package first - the one I've told to not update (ignore=...)
and than leaves me alone to cope with it (via a local build from source)
vs.
I force pacman to ignore any dependency from nvida and rebuild nvidia my self
- 'cause I know what I'm doing, see The_Arch_Way

Yes, you are right. They're two visions/paths for the same solution. So, why is the Arch Linux user not able to choose? Maybe due to The_Arch_Way_v2.0

A note on using the dd option

I did not try using the pacman -Syudd option, so I do not know if it works for this case (although I believe it works).
However, I'm a little uncomfortable with it because other packages caught in this upgrade could get screwed up while you just want to solve the nvidia/kernel dispute...
rtfreedman, if you do try it please, let me know if it worked. (If it works, then you do have both choices and we honour the user-centric nature of ArchLinux or am I wrong?.)

hokasch · 2012-01-24 21:43:39

In my last post I typoed, I meant post 11, where loafer directly quotes you the relevant part from the manpage.

rtfreedman wrote:

Oh - I thought you meant this from the manpage:
... Specify this option twice to skip all dependency checks.

rtfreedman wrote:

Hm, do you withdraw from 'its all in the manpage!'?

OK you lost me again - what do you mean? And why would you need -Syudd in this case?

DarkVenger wrote:

I did not try using the pacman -Syudd option, so I do not know if it works for this case (although I believe it works).
However, I'm a little uncomfortable with it because other packages caught in this upgrade could get screwed up while you just want to solve the nvidia/kernel dispute...

True, you could run -Syu first to see if nvidia is the only conflict, then run -Sud directly afterwards.

rtfreedman · 2012-01-24 22:00:58

Hokasch wrote:

OK you lost me again - what do you mean?

What about 'Ok Nevermind' ....... ?
I trusted Gusar (a lot of posts ):

Gusar wrote:

Skipping dependencies won't work in this case.

So we have nearly 30 posts and still don't be sure of the right Arch way?
I didn't tried -dd - I did it my way:
/var/lib/pacman/local/nvidia-285.05.09-3/desc
#nvidia<3.2

If someone know for sure if it should work in this case, please step forward and put this thread to an end.

Last edited by rtfreedman (2012-01-24 22:06:01)

Gusar · 2012-01-24 22:05:23

I can't be the only one who still doesn't get what this is all about, can I?

What exactly is your issue still, rtfreedman? You know now how to skip dependencies, and you know that in this case doing so will break your machine (well, to be exact it'll break X). So really, what are you trying to accomplish?

hokasch · 2012-01-24 22:10:19

I edited my post before you posted, and added the commands you are looking for - "OK, Nevermind" was refering to posting the switch (-d) instead of refering to the manpage - although it was already posted in 11.

Of course it works with -d, it skips dependency checks... (version only/version + filename is -dd)! It won't "work" in the sense of not breaking nvidia, but you knew that.

If you did it your way and succeded, you can put this thread "to an end" by adding [solved] to the title

rtfreedman · 2012-01-24 22:12:06

A simple answer to this question would have put this thread to an end long time ago.
Thanks for the afford.

Last edited by rtfreedman (2012-01-24 22:15:35)

hokasch · 2012-01-24 22:13:45

LOL

I am out of here. enjoy.

Gusar · 2012-01-24 22:14:57

rtfreedman wrote:

What would be the right pacman options to be used in this case?

There is no one magic option. There's just the procedure DarkVenger posted. All the way back in post #9

rtfreedman · 2012-01-24 22:21:45

Gusar wrote:

rtfreedman wrote:
What would be the right pacman options to be used in this case?
There is no one magic option.

I'm lost - Isn't -d or -dd that 'magic' option - doesn't it work?
I would prefer a definite answer...

Gusar wrote:

There's just the procedure DarkVenger posted. All the way back in post #9

Well, I did it my way - a different way!

Gusar · 2012-01-24 22:24:11

rtfreedman wrote:

I'm lost - Isn't -d or -dd that 'magic' option - doesn't it work?

Read the previous posts. All answers are already there.

rtfreedman · 2012-01-24 22:27:09

Can't you answer a simple question.... ?
I leave it to others to make any sense of it.

Last edited by rtfreedman (2012-01-24 22:30:28)

DarkVenger · 2012-01-24 23:41:26

hokasch wrote:

True, you could run -Syu first to see if nvidia is the only conflict, then run -Sud directly afterwards.

Has far as I remember this does not work because pacman immediately exits indicating the nvidia: requires linux<3.2 error.
So no list of "upgradables" is printed...So I guess the policy is resolve problems first, upgrade later .

rtfreedman wrote:

So we have nearly 30 posts and still don't be sure of the right Arch way?

Yes we are, the Arch way is to do it in the manner that is most right for you. There is no universal right or wrong here.

rtfreedman wrote:

I didn't tried -dd - I did it my way:
/var/lib/pacman/local/nvidia-285.05.09-3/desc
#nvidia<3.2

This is that example, for me, messing in such a "low level" file is wrong...

rtfreedman wrote:

If someone know for sure if it should work in this case, please step forward and put this thread to an end.

So we have two methods confirmed to work, and you want to know if a third (using -dd) works?
I see 2 options here, revert your system and try it or wait patiently for someone to try it and share the results...but the main point of this thread is more than [solved].

hokasch · 2012-01-25 00:49:49

DarkVenger wrote:

Has far as I remember this does not work because pacman immediately exits indicating the nvidia: requires linux<3.2 error.
So no list of "upgradables" is printed...So I guess the policy is resolve problems first, upgrade later wink.

Pacman will let you know about all conflicts it finds before exiting, it doesnt stop at the first encountered. In this case, you can skip the checks (if you consequently rebuild nvidia and nvidia-utils).
You will have everything updated but nvidia and nvidia-utils. The pkgbuild from ABS has its module path hard-coded (instead of building for the running kernel), so you can take the newest one and only change the version number without rebooting. Running -Syud is just an alternative for the first 3 steps you posted.

rtfreedman · 2012-01-25 20:53:59

Updated first post...

Arch Linux

#26 2012-01-24 21:13:46

Re: [solved] nvidia: requires linux<3.2

#27 2012-01-24 21:43:39

Re: [solved] nvidia: requires linux<3.2

#28 2012-01-24 22:00:58

Re: [solved] nvidia: requires linux<3.2

#29 2012-01-24 22:05:23

Re: [solved] nvidia: requires linux<3.2

#30 2012-01-24 22:10:19

Re: [solved] nvidia: requires linux<3.2

#31 2012-01-24 22:12:06

Re: [solved] nvidia: requires linux<3.2

#32 2012-01-24 22:13:45

Re: [solved] nvidia: requires linux<3.2

#33 2012-01-24 22:14:57

Re: [solved] nvidia: requires linux<3.2

#34 2012-01-24 22:21:45

Re: [solved] nvidia: requires linux<3.2

#35 2012-01-24 22:24:11

Re: [solved] nvidia: requires linux<3.2

#36 2012-01-24 22:27:09

Re: [solved] nvidia: requires linux<3.2

#37 2012-01-24 23:41:26

Re: [solved] nvidia: requires linux<3.2

#38 2012-01-25 00:49:49

Re: [solved] nvidia: requires linux<3.2

#39 2012-01-25 20:53:59

Re: [solved] nvidia: requires linux<3.2

Board footer