[extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

sarah31 · 2004-07-02 20:56:46

because the package does not eliminate any steps. it simply packages the binary in mildly stripped down form and creates an uneccessary directory. the user still has to do all the same things as they would if they just downloaded the binary themself.

in the end the user has 4+ mb of a package in his/her cache, another diretory in opt with another 4= mb of data, and to boot they still have to manually run the installer.

so basically stripping out the percompiled kernel stuff that this package supposedly does (personally i don't see that step anywhere) is supposed to be more economical but, in fact, it isn't because they user now has two copies of the same thing on their system.

i just downloaded one installer binary and that is all i have ever had to do. it sits in my /home/username directory and has for .... months. there have been, i believe, two upgrades of the driver since and all i have to do is run nvidia-installer --update and there we go i am done. no packages, no extra binaries floating around, etc.

the original package that used to be in the trees was different than the current one .... and it was nixed when it became obvious that too much time was wasted trying to make a package that was as good as the binary installer.

tpowa · 2004-07-03 07:06:50

hi sarah that is not true that it does nothing!
i have written before that it runs the installer for you
and it does a clean deinstall if you remove the package
nothing less nothing more
if you run it without X it runs the installer without any user action
loads the module and you can right start X again
it shows how to set up the driver in your config without the need of the wiki
if you don't like feel free not to use it

i made the package because
i like to run pacman -Syu and all is up to date
so the driver gets updated too.
and with the install info you can set up the driver really easy
(i think of newbies who don't want/know to look at the wiki or read the README)

If you want a smaller package it would be kernel depend and thats not a good solution.

sarah31 · 2004-07-03 09:51:06

tpowa wrote:

hi sarah that is not true that it does nothing!
i have written before that it runs the installer for you
and it does a clean deinstall if you remove the package
nothing less nothing more
if you run it without X it runs the installer without any user action
loads the module and you can right start X again
it shows how to set up the driver in your config without the need of the wiki

and how is this different than the nvidia installer? why should a use continue to use packages each release whne the nvidia binary installed does it for you? running nvidia-installer -update is as easy as running pacman -Syu and like i said it is way lighter.

if you don't like feel free not to use it

i don't because it is not rocket science to use the nvidia binary and like i say install it once and that is all you need (as long as things don't change too much with the kernel package).

i made the package because
i like to run pacman -Syu and all is up to date
so the driver gets updated too.
and with the install info you can set up the driver really easy
(i think of newbies who don't want/know to look at the wiki or read the README)

i understand that but you are forcing people to reinstall binaries each time they use the package and instead of having one binary on their system they have two (since a backup of the package is saved in the user's cache).

If you want a smaller package it would be kernel depend and thats not a good solution.

i am not sure what you are talking about here but the lightest "package" is just installing and using the nvidia binary.

tmadhavan · 2004-07-03 10:38:06

Sarah, I can't see what the problem is.

No one is 'forcing' anyone to install anything. Normally I would have used binaries, but for some unfathomable reason, they don't work on my machine.

Thanks to this package (and I know it installs from binaries, whatever, I don't know why it works) I now have fully working 6106 drivers, which I can upgrade with my usual Pacman -Syu.

A much better solution, it seems to me.

It isn't rocket science to use Nvidia installer, you're right, but as was correctly stated by tpowa:

tpowa wrote:

if you don't like feel free not to use it

tpowa · 2004-07-03 11:05:41

@ sarah
if you use the update function of the installer
it downloads the new version of the installer completly

whats the difference to mine?
mine is stored in cache (you can remove it if it's not needed)
nvidia loads it to tmp and it's lost after reboot
(it loads something from the web it's the bigger package with the precompiled modules)
If something with your update goes wrong the file is lost and you have to reload it from the web (please correct me if i'm wrong)

and what's the matter of having 4MB "wasted" harddisk space, which you can easily remove from cache ;-)

i use my cache for mainting 4 pcs if i use your version with update
i have to download the nvidia update each time
so it is in my cache and a pacman do the trick :-)
by the way
what you do if your kernel or gcc is updated?
nvidia-installer --update?
now it loads again the package from the web
that's just wasting time, money etc (think of modem users)
with my package pacman -S nvidia and all is done

i'll keep on maintaining this package because i think this is newbie/user friendly and helpful for other people who don't know when a new driver is released(it is smaller than your package) and it uses the package manager of arch to savely install and remove the installer.

sarah you make a good job,
keep up your postings and help for the others
if i post something wrong please correct me

sarah31 · 2004-07-03 11:40:21

tpowa wrote:

@ sarah
if you use the update function of the installer
it downloads the new version of the installer completly

yes and?

whats the difference to mine?
mine is stored in cache (you can remove it if it's not needed)
nvidia loads it to tmp and it's lost after reboot

yep and ?

(it loads something from the web it's the bigger package with the precompiled modules)
If something with your update goes wrong the file is lost and you have to reload it from the web (please correct me if i'm wrong)

i couldn't care less if i get the precompiled modules or not. nothing has gone wrong with my update ... ever. sure if something goes wrong and you have rebooted (why i would reboot for reasons other than a kernel upgrade i don't know) you would have to download again but if your package is not properly downloaded or corrupt the same issue arises.

and what's the matter of having 4MB "wasted" harddisk space, which you can easily remove from cache ;-)

it is the extra needless directory that is my problem and the fact that when a user installs your current package they cannot use the settings tools because the $PATH is not set to them. If there is onething i dislike is extra directories being created. I don't think nvidia driver should be in /opt they are not that big/complex and putting them there seems to cause other issues with the new tools.

i use my cache for mainting 4 pcs if i use your version with update
i have to download the nvidia update each time
so it is in my cache and a pacman do the trick :-)

i have an older copy of drivers sitting in my /home/username directory and they have been there for ..... a very long time. so any computer connected to that one has the potential scp the package if they like or i could quickly transfer it to another computer here (i don't need to btw)

by the way
what you do if your kernel or gcc is updated?
nvidia-installer --update?
now it loads again the package from the web
that's just wasting time, money etc (think of modem users)
with my package pacman -S nvidia and all is done

i just run my local copy of the older installer and i am done. since i know they work just fine. If i were on dialup i would then install run the updater and be done in an hour or so (if even that long). now i don't know about anyone else but i regularily dump my cache so are you telling me that you always keep a copy of your installer around? I would hope not. I would hope that with the package you could just type in the path to run the installer from /opt/nvidia and be done with it. Or is that not the case?

i'll keep on maintaining this package because i think this is newbie/user friendly and helpful for other people who don't know when a new driver is released(it is smaller than your package) and it uses the package manager of arch to savely install and remove the installer.

i think you are wasting too much time with it myself.

tpowa · 2004-07-03 12:19:43

you can use the settings tool nothing wrong with that
it works for me, but i think it's only good for gamers right now
for fsaa and so on i don't need that (no twinview etc.)

has nothing to do with the $path
it is installed to /usr/bin
that should be in path ;-)

and the installer has not to be in the path because
if you run pacman -S nvidia it is all done for you

and about the path opt:
come on kde gnome openoffice acrobat mozilla is installed there
why not nvidia installer?
yours is in your home directory nothing different
it needs there or there 4-8 MB

well i think it has been discussed enough about that
let the users decide what and how they want to install the nvidia drivers
i'll keep on wasting my time with that ;-)

@ all
i am open for suggestions
how to improve the package (also the installation notes)
feel free to post it here

lanrat · 2004-07-05 10:36:39

A question: if you install nvidia from a package then does pacman report libgl (I don't remember the full path) as owned by nvidia package? If yes then this could be a potential danger if someone (for example) uses namcap blindly when building new packages because this library will probably be advised to be included in the depends array. And of course this in turn could force someone not using nvidia to unnecessary install this dependency and/or even destroy his x installation (easy to fix though) Just asking...

tpowa · 2004-07-05 18:03:49

if you use the installer itself it wouldn't make a difference
i didn't hear something from the developers so i think everything is alright
i think libGL is also provided by mesa so it shouldn't be a problem here
nvidia shouldn't be used as dependency at all it's a add-on not a must have ;-)
you shouldn't use namcap blindly it's a help but you have still to use your brain :-)

lanrat · 2004-07-05 18:45:12

I'm not using namcap blindly 8)
And I can say that if you are using nvidia-installer then pacman/namcap will report that it just can't find the owner of libgl (which is not a problem if xfree/x or some other x-dependent package is already in the depends array). If pacman -Qo /path/to/libgl will tell you that the owner is nvidia package then someone could place it as a dependency - potentialy of course. I'm sure archers are smart enough to not include nvidia in the depends array :-)

Example

namcap -i bzflag-1.10.6.20040515-1.pkg.tar.gz
bzflag     W: Library usr/lib/libGLcore.so.1 has no package associated
bzflag     W: Library usr/lib/libnvidia-tls.so.1 has no package associated

bzflag     I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=(ncurses xfree86)

BTW I just noticed that the second warning is a new one - IIRC there wasn't such before - so they added something new... Anyway bzflag works well with the new driver without recompiling :-)

mxcl · 2004-07-05 19:14:45

I find the nvidia package very convenient and personally am glad that tpowa is "wasting his time" on it.

Thanks!

tpowa · 2004-07-28 10:11:11

UPDATE:
Changes in new Version:
Reworked Install Information
no longer files in /opt/nvidia/ (not wasting two times hd-space anymore)
@ sarah you will love it (smaller than nvidia-installer -update ;-) )

updated PKGBUILD
no longer annoying Nvidia Installer animations

grab it from staging or run pacman -S nvidia
you need not to update since the drivers are the same ;-)
only install method changed and docu

Mr Green · 2004-07-28 14:29:12

I have loaded 6106 drivers....

But I cannot run nvidia-settings do you have the same problem?

tpowa · 2004-07-28 14:32:02

you have the new s3 package?
for me it works but it kills my X Server if i rerun it
so i don't use it normally

Mr Green · 2004-07-28 14:39:22

I ran it once when I installed drivers but after that it kills X !!!!

NVIDIA-Linux-x86-1.0-6106-pkg1.run is what I am using....

tpowa · 2004-07-28 14:46:20

yeah same problem
did you try using nvidia-drivers from staging?
this thread was intended for the package but all bugs from nvidia are sure inside it ;-)
then you don't need the Installer from their site anymore

there you can read that if this happens delete your nvidia.config-rc file in
your home directory to get it working but i don't touch it until this is fixed

new nvidia package under:
ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/tur/staging/nvi … pkg.tar.gz

tmadhavan · 2004-07-29 08:42:26

Yeh I have that problem with nvidia-settings, it's really dodgy.

But then, there's not much useful stuff you can do with it anyway, is there? I'd agree with tpowa and say just don't worry about it until it's fixed - my X was killed last time I used nvidia-settings :S

Mr Green · 2004-07-29 08:52:34

If you must overclock your card then try nvclock

As you say ,I think I will wait till they fix the bugs...

tpowa · 2004-08-05 21:00:07

update to 1.0-6111
Release Highlights

Fixed SoftImage certification issues.
Made the "Do you really want to quit?" dialog in nvidia-settings optional (via the nvidia-settings Configuration page).
Fixed problem that prevented multiple simultaneous X servers from running on TNT/TNT2.
Fixed problem that caused TV-Out modes other than 640x480 and 800x600 to be unavailable.
Fixed problem that caused cursor misplacement/corruption in certain TwinView configurations.
Fixed problem that caused some AGP kernel module options to be ignored.
Fixed problem in GLSL with shadow2DProj.
Fixed console restore problems on GeForce4 Ti.
View the README (Text Version) for more information on this release.

lanrat · 2004-08-05 22:12:17

Thanks for the info! It's very fresh but now 1024x768 on my tv is back!

(**) NVIDIA(1): Validated modes for display device TV-0:
(**) NVIDIA(1):      Default mode "1024x768": 65.0 MHz, 48.4 kHz, 60.0 Hz
(**) NVIDIA(1):      Default mode "800x600": 40.0 MHz, 37.9 kHz, 60.3 Hz
(**) NVIDIA(1):      Default mode "640x480": 25.2 MHz, 31.5 kHz, 60.0 Hz
(**) NVIDIA(1):      Default mode "400x300": 20.0 MHz, 37.9 kHz, 60.3 Hz (D)
(**) NVIDIA(1):      Default mode "320x240": 12.6 MHz, 31.5 kHz, 60.1 Hz (D)
(II) NVIDIA(1): Virtual screen size determined to be 1024 x 768
(==) NVIDIA(1): DPI set to (75, 75)

Looks like it works fine with all the latest updates too.

tpowa · 2004-09-02 17:07:12

changelog:
package now in extra
added a hint for the license
enjoy

schmoemi · 2004-10-17 22:16:46

(II) LoadModule: "nvidia"
(WW)Warning, couldn't open module nvidia
(II) UnloadModule: "nvidia"
(EE) Failed to load module "nvidia" (module does not exist, 0)

What went wrong here?

tpowa · 2004-10-18 05:53:20

have you updated your kernel?
try to rerun
pacman -S nvidia and a new kermel-module should be built

Arch Linux

#26 2004-07-02 20:56:46

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#27 2004-07-03 07:06:50

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#28 2004-07-03 09:51:06

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#29 2004-07-03 10:38:06

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#30 2004-07-03 11:05:41

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#31 2004-07-03 11:40:21

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#32 2004-07-03 12:19:43

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#33 2004-07-05 10:36:39

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#34 2004-07-05 18:03:49

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#35 2004-07-05 18:45:12

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#36 2004-07-05 19:14:45

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#37 2004-07-28 10:11:11

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#38 2004-07-28 14:29:12

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#39 2004-07-28 14:32:02

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#40 2004-07-28 14:39:22

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#41 2004-07-28 14:46:20

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#42 2004-07-29 08:42:26

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#43 2004-07-29 08:52:34

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#44 2004-08-05 21:00:07

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#45 2004-08-05 22:12:17

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#46 2004-09-02 17:07:12

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#47 2004-10-17 22:16:46

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

#48 2004-10-18 05:53:20

Re: [extra/x11] nvidia graphics driver

Board footer