Re: [ATrpms-users] Building nvidia 310 driver for Fedora 16 x86_64

Paulo:

Thanks.  I've installed it and it seems to be working (FYI, I'm still on
FC16 x86_64, for anyone who is wondering if it works on that distribution).

On addressing the conflict, I'm not sure that same filtering will work, but
simply adding a rm -f {path}/nvidia-cuda-proxy to the pre-install macro
might work.  The only problem is that there is no recovery if the rest of
the install fails.  I suppose you could move it to a nividia-cuda-proxy.old
file and alert the user as a recoverable alternative, but that might create
other issues.  I'm just not experienced enough with building RPMs to know
which would be the best course.

Thanks for all of your work on this driver.  Hopefully I can be of more
help in the future.

George


On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Paulo Cavalcanti <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:08 PM, George Galt <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Paulo:
>>
>> I get a conflict with:
>> Transaction Check Error:
>>   file /usr/bin/nvidia-cuda-proxy-control from install of
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-310.19-151.fc16.x86_64 conflicts with file from
>> package nvidia-graphics304.51-304.51-149.fc16.x86_64
>>   file /usr/bin/nvidia-cuda-proxy-server from install of
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-310.19-151.fc16.x86_64 conflicts with file from
>> package nvidia-graphics304.51-304.51-149.fc16.x86_64
>>
>> I got the same error when I tried to install the 304.64 driver (I'm on
>> the 304.51 driver).  I believe that the 304.51 driver introduced these
>> files (they weren't in the 302 driver).  What is the appropriate way to
>> handle this?  I'm sure I could simply ignore the error, but for those who
>> want a clean install (or to leave legacy drivers installed in case they
>> need to return to them), we might want to fix this issue too.
>>
>> Sorry to be a PITA!
>>
>>
> This was happening before.
> nvidia-cuda-proxy-control is a new file, which appeared
> in the 300 series. Since it is unversioned, and the previous package
> is not being removed, the conflict appears.
>
> We can either supply it in a separate package, or just
> filter it as we did with libnvcuvid.so
>
> In the next package, I will deal with this issue. For now,
> just use "sudo rpm -Uvh --force ...."
>
>
> --
> Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
> LCG - UFRJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> atrpms-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
>