View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
dmpogo Advocate
Joined: 02 Sep 2004 Posts: 3267 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
@linear
Could you check the dates on your .h files relative to the rest from nvidia-drivers ? Could it be that they are leftovers from some previous installation ?
I looked at nvidia-drivers ebuild and the only reference to glx headers I see is
Code: |
# Use some more sensible gl headers and make way for new glext.h
epatch "${FILESDIR}"/NVIDIA_glx-glheader.patch
|
BTW, your 185.18.36 is not in portage anymore, 185.18.36-r1 is. Could it be that the difference is this header patch ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
linear Apprentice
Joined: 12 Aug 2004 Posts: 222
|
Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dmpogo wrote: | Could you check the dates on your .h files relative to the rest from nvidia-drivers ? Could it be that they are leftovers from some previous installation ?
I looked at nvidia-drivers ebuild and the only reference to glx headers I see is
Code: | # Use some more sensible gl headers and make way for new glext.h
epatch "${FILESDIR}"/NVIDIA_glx-glheader.patch |
BTW, your 185.18.36 is not in portage anymore, 185.18.36-r1 is. Could it be that the difference is this header patch ? |
Hmmmm... very possibly. Since, when I look in the ebuild for the drivers I have in, I find a couple of places where it discusses header files:
Code: | # Use some more sensible gl headers and make way for new glext.h
epatch "${FILESDIR}"/NVIDIA_glx-glheader.patch |
That one is the same as you found, but I also have these:
Code: | # don't ask me why the headers are there.. glxext.h is missing
incdir=doc |
and
Code: | # Includes
insinto ${NV_ROOT}/include
doins ${incdir}/*.h |
and then goes into the cuda.h and vdpau.h files that you were discussing earlier. As a note, the -r1 version's ebuild has the same entries as well. And, I still have not had a chance to log off my desktop as I have a couple of large projects I'm working on at this time. But, I will do so at my first available opportunity.
BTW, here is the dates for you on those header files compared to the other files:
Code: | # ls -l /usr/lib64/opengl/nvidia/include/total 588
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 73062 Dec 11 2009 gl.h
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 465838 Dec 11 2009 glext.h
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 14049 Dec 11 2009 glx.h
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 34430 Dec 11 2009 glxext.h |
The rest of the fies:
Code: | # ls -l /usr/lib64/opengl/nvidia/
total 20
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 11 2009 extensions
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 11 2009 include
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 11 2009 lib
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 11 2009 no-tls
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Dec 11 2009 tls |
and
Code: | # ls -l /usr/lib64/opengl/nvidia/lib/
total 19472
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 715 Dec 11 2009 libGL.la
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Dec 11 2009 libGL.so -> libGL.so.185.18.36
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Dec 11 2009 libGL.so.1 -> libGL.so.185.18.36
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 792992 Dec 11 2009 libGL.so.185.18.36
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Dec 11 2009 libGLcore.so -> libGLcore.so.185.18.36
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Dec 11 2009 libGLcore.so.1 -> libGLcore.so.185.18.36
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 18972488 Dec 11 2009 libGLcore.so.185.18.36
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 26 Dec 11 2009 libnvidia-cfg.so -> libnvidia-cfg.so.185.18.36
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 26 Dec 11 2009 libnvidia-cfg.so.1 -> libnvidia-cfg.so.185.18.36
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 133896 Dec 11 2009 libnvidia-cfg.so.185.18.36
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 23 Dec 11 2009 libnvidia-tls.so -> ../tls/libnvidia-tls.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 25 Dec 11 2009 libnvidia-tls.so.1 -> ../tls/libnvidia-tls.so.1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 33 Dec 11 2009 libnvidia-tls.so.185.18.36 -> ../tls/libnvidia-tls.so.185.18.36 |
So, they definitely came with the package and were copied in by portage. Now, the package I am planning to upgrade to (nvidia-drivers-195.36.15) has it the way you are describing, so we'll see what happens when I get to that point.
TTYL. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NiLuJe Guru
Joined: 06 Nov 2004 Posts: 303 Location: Paris, France
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yep, nVidia's OpenGL headers aren't installed anymore since the 190.42-r2 ebuild. I don't know why that is though...
I updated the nvidia-drivers beta/rc ebuilds @bugzilla (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=321061#c50) to include back the ability to install them (but commented out by default for now), if anybody cares to try... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
phajdan.jr Retired Dev
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 1777 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
NiLuJe wrote: | Yep, nVidia's OpenGL headers aren't installed anymore since the 190.42-r2 ebuild. I don't know why that is though... |
But then 195.x.x seems to install the headers again: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=324893. This is a bit strange. Maybe some of you who use nvidia-drivers, just still use xorg-x11 OpenGL implementation? That may explain the differences. _________________ http://phajdan-jr.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dmpogo Advocate
Joined: 02 Sep 2004 Posts: 3267 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
phajdan.jr wrote: | NiLuJe wrote: | Yep, nVidia's OpenGL headers aren't installed anymore since the 190.42-r2 ebuild. I don't know why that is though... |
But then 195.x.x seems to install the headers again: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=324893. This is a bit strange. Maybe some of you who use nvidia-drivers, just still use xorg-x11 OpenGL implementation? That may explain the differences. |
No, I don't for one. And no headers with neither nvidia-drivers-190.42-r3 nor nvidia-drivers-173.14.25 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
NiLuJe Guru
Joined: 06 Nov 2004 Posts: 303 Location: Paris, France
|
Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
phajdan.jr wrote: | NiLuJe wrote: | Yep, nVidia's OpenGL headers aren't installed anymore since the 190.42-r2 ebuild. I don't know why that is though... |
But then 195.x.x seems to install the headers again: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=324893. This is a bit strange. Maybe some of you who use nvidia-drivers, just still use xorg-x11 OpenGL implementation? That may explain the differences. |
That may be because the 195.x drivers were rc/beta drivers released before the stable 190.42. I didn't check, but that's one possible reason .
EDIT: Err, actually, 195.36.31 is a 'stable' release, and we don't have an ebuild for it in the tree, so it's likely from a local overlay bumped from a recent ebuild which didn't install the headers. (It's been ~6 months since 190.42-r2).
And, yeah, what this means is that eselect-opengl setups it's 'global' OpenGL headers, which are likely slightly older snapshot of the xorg-x11 implementation. And so chrome builds successfully on those systems, and not on the ones using older nvidia-drivers ebuild, because eselect-opengl would then use nVidia's OpenGL implementation, which chrome doesn't seem to support. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
linear Apprentice
Joined: 12 Aug 2004 Posts: 222
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay,
I got it running on nvidia-drivers-195.36.24. Yeah!
@dmpogo: And on these drivers, it got rid of glx.h, vdpau.h but it still has the epatch line as well as the cuda.h and a new one, OpenCL headers under /usr/include/CL. Go figure.
@phajdan.jr: Thanks again. Both for here and at code.google.com. You rock!
Thanks for the assist, folks. Now having a blast exploring Chromium! W00T! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|