[arch-dev-public] nvidia 334.21-3 / nvidia-lts 334.21-4 pulled from [testing]
Hi all, The nvidia-modprobe binary was provided in the "nvidia" / "nvidia-lts" packages, but this doesn't work well because the two packages should not be prevented from installing together. To fix this, I've pulled the two packages from [testing], and will upload a new nvidia-utils package containing the binary to [testing]. FS#39203 and FS#39636 will be closed if the new package fixed everything. (A setuid binary is not good, but no trivial workaround was found) If you still have one of the packages installed, please revert them to the corresponding version in [extra]. If you failed to do so, a file conflict error is expected after the new nvidia-utils get pushed. Sorry for the inconvenience! Regards, Felix Yan
Am 27.03.2014 16:02, schrieb Felix Yan:
Hi all,
The nvidia-modprobe binary was provided in the "nvidia" / "nvidia-lts" packages, but this doesn't work well because the two packages should not be prevented from installing together.
To fix this, I've pulled the two packages from [testing], and will upload a new nvidia-utils package containing the binary to [testing]. FS#39203 and FS#39636 will be closed if the new package fixed everything. (A setuid binary is not good, but no trivial workaround was found)
Seriously, that is a crappy solution. If nvidia would properly register its devices with linux, these devices could be created dynamically. It's really up to nvidia to fix their kernel module. (By the way, the /dev/nvidia* devices do not even generate proper uevents and thus cannot be caught by udev or systemd. I wish they would stop relying on a closed-source kernel driver with debatable quality.)
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 04:15:21PM +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 27.03.2014 16:02, schrieb Felix Yan:
Hi all,
The nvidia-modprobe binary was provided in the "nvidia" / "nvidia-lts" packages, but this doesn't work well because the two packages should not be prevented from installing together.
To fix this, I've pulled the two packages from [testing], and will upload a new nvidia-utils package containing the binary to [testing]. FS#39203 and FS#39636 will be closed if the new package fixed everything. (A setuid binary is not good, but no trivial workaround was found)
Seriously, that is a crappy solution. If nvidia would properly register its devices with linux, these devices could be created dynamically. It's really up to nvidia to fix their kernel module.
(By the way, the /dev/nvidia* devices do not even generate proper uevents and thus cannot be caught by udev or systemd. I wish they would stop relying on a closed-source kernel driver with debatable quality.)
Heh. Now they have *2* modules of debatable quality.
On Thursday, March 27, 2014 16:15:21 Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 27.03.2014 16:02, schrieb Felix Yan:
Hi all,
The nvidia-modprobe binary was provided in the "nvidia" / "nvidia-lts" packages, but this doesn't work well because the two packages should not be prevented from installing together.
To fix this, I've pulled the two packages from [testing], and will upload a new nvidia-utils package containing the binary to [testing]. FS#39203 and FS#39636 will be closed if the new package fixed everything. (A setuid binary is not good, but no trivial workaround was found)
Seriously, that is a crappy solution. If nvidia would properly register its devices with linux, these devices could be created dynamically. It's really up to nvidia to fix their kernel module.
(By the way, the /dev/nvidia* devices do not even generate proper uevents and thus cannot be caught by udev or systemd. I wish they would stop relying on a closed-source kernel driver with debatable quality.)
Yeah, I totally agree with you. I played a lot with udev but only produced a hacky (and certainly wrong except "works") udev rule. I don't think that one better than the upstream-provided crappy binary. I've also asked upstream for help, but still didn't get a reply. Regards, Felix Yan
participants (3)
-
Dave Reisner
-
Felix Yan
-
Thomas Bächler