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

Brian:

As I noted above, there appears to be a mismatch between what RPM believes
the package provides and what it requires.  For the 304.51 driver, the
-libs file "provides" libnvcuvid.so.1, and "requires" libnvcuvid.so.1.
However, for the 310.19 driver, the -libs file provides "libnvcuvid.so.1"
but requires "libnvcuvid()(64-bit).  The list of what is "provided" by a
package and "required" by a package is generated by RPM.  It seems that
somehow RPM inspects the 310-libs package and gets the list wrong, but got
it right on the 304-libs package.

I don't know if there is a way other than the macros to alter the
"requires" list to properly state that the 310-libs package requires
libnvcuvid.so.1, but that is where things are failing.  I hope this helps.

George


On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Brian Long <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Paulo Cavalcanti <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>
>> This is because the macros I used to filter the "required"
>> should not be available for centos/rhel.
>>
>> I have no solution for that...
>>
>>
> Could you add the required macros to atrpms-rpm-config on EL and add a
> Build-Requires for the newer version?
>
> /Brian/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> atrpms-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
>