Mailing List Archive

Well, I've tried to follow the instructions on the Packaging Guidelines,
but it doesn't seem to have worked for me. I'm reasonable new to RPM
packaging, so I might be missing something.

I've added
%filter_from_requires '/libnvcuvid.so()(64bit)/d'

after the lines
Requires(post): nvidia-graphics-helpers
%kmdl nvidia-graphics%{version}
%kmdl_parentdependencies

in the .spec file, but it doesn't seem to fix it. If anyone has any
suggestions on how to proceed, I would appreciate it.

One interesting thing, during building the driver using Paulo's "bkmdl.sh"
script, there is some output that gives both a "Provides" and a "Requires"
line. For the 304.51 driver, the -libs file is listed as "providing"
libnvcuvid.so.1, and requiring libnvcuvid.so.1. However, for the 310.19
driver, the -libs file provides "libnvcuvid.so.1" but requires
"libnvcuvid()(64-bit).

George




On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Chris Schanzle <schanzle@nist.gov> wrote:

> Mentioned in <http://fedoraproject.org/**wiki/Packaging:Guidelines<http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines>
> >:
>
> RPM attempts to auto-generate Requires (and Provides) at build time, but
> in some situations, the auto-generated Requires/Provides are not correct or
> not wanted. For more details on how to filter out auto-generated Requires
> or Provides, please see: <http://fedoraproject.org/**wiki/Packaging:**
> AutoProvidesAndRequiresFilteri**ng<http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering>
> >
>
> Perhaps tweaking the Requires or Provides filters would do the trick. Or
> add/remove directories from scanning.
>
> Thanks for working on this!
>
>
>
> On 12/04/2012 03:19 PM, George Galt wrote:
>
>> Paulo:
>>
>> Sorry, I also meant to include a diff from the 304.51 spec file to the
>> 310.19. Nothing jumps out at me:
>>
>> diff nvidia-graphics304.51.spec nvidia-graphics310.19.spec
>> 2,3c2,3
>> < Version: 304.51
>> < Release: 149%{?dist}
>> ---
>>
>>> Version: 310.19
>>> Release: 151%{?dist}
>>>
>> 191c191
>> < mv %{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/**lib*.so*
>> %{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/%{**NVfolder}/
>> ---
>>
>>> #mv %{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/**lib*.so*
>>> %{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/%{**NVfolder}/
>>>
>> 193c193
>> < ln -s %{NVfolder}/libXvMCNVIDIA_**dynamic.so.1
>> %{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/**libXvMCNVIDIA.so
>> ---
>>
>>> #ln -s %{NVfolder}/libXvMCNVIDIA_**dynamic.so.1
>>> %{buildroot}%{_x_libraries}/**libXvMCNVIDIA.so
>>>
>> 287c287
>> < %{_x_libraries}/%{NVfolder}/**libXvMCNVIDIA*.so.*
>> ---
>>
>>> #%{_x_libraries}/%{NVfolder}/**libXvMCNVIDIA*.so.*
>>>
>> 306,308c306,308
>> < %{_x_libraries}/libXvMCNVIDIA.**a
>> < %{_x_libraries}/libXvMCNVIDIA.**so
>> < %{_x_libraries}/%{NVfolder}/**libXvMCNVIDIA_dynamic.so
>> ---
>>
>>> #%{_x_libraries}/**libXvMCNVIDIA.a
>>> #%{_x_libraries}/**libXvMCNVIDIA.so
>>> #%{_x_libraries}/%{NVfolder}/**libXvMCNVIDIA_dynamic.so
>>>
>> 327c327,333
>> < * Sun Oct 21 2012 Axel Thimm Paulo Roma <roma@lcg.ufrj.br <mailto:
>> roma@lcg.ufrj.br>> - 304.51-149
>> ---
>>
>>> * Sat Dec 01 2012 Paulo Roma <roma@lcg.ufrj.br <mailto:roma@lcg.ufrj.br>>
>>> - 310.19-151
>>>
>>> - Update to 310.19.
>>>
>>> * Fri Nov 9 2012 Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net> - 304.64-150
>>> - Update to 304.64.
>>>
>>> * Sun Oct 21 2012 Paulo Roma Paulo Roma <roma@lcg.ufrj.br <mailto:
>>> roma@lcg.ufrj.br>> - 304.51-149
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 3:08 PM, George Galt <george.galt@gmail.com<mailto:
>> george.galt@gmail.com>**> wrote:
>>
>> Paulo:
>>
>> Oddly, prior iterations of the nvidia-graphics-libs didn't require
>> libnvcuvid.so, even though they installed them. I'm currently running the
>> 304.51 driver, and rpm reports:
>>
>> rpm -q --requires -p nvidia-graphics304.51-libs-**
>> 304.51-149.fc16.x86_64.rpm
>> /bin/sh
>> /bin/sh
>> libX11.so.6()(64bit)
>> libXext.so.6()(64bit)
>> libXv.so.1()(64bit)
>> libXvMC.so.1()(64bit)
>> libc.so.6()(64bit)
>> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
>> libdl.so.2()(64bit)
>> libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
>> libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
>> libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
>> libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit)
>> libm.so.6()(64bit)
>> libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
>> libnvidia-glcore.so.304.51()(**64bit)
>> libnvidia-tls.so.304.51()(**64bit)
>> libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
>> libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(**64bit)
>> librt.so.1()(64bit)
>> librt.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
>> libvdpau.so.1()(64bit)
>> libvdpau_nvidia.so.1()(64bit)
>> libvdpau_trace.so.1()(64bit)
>> libz.so.1()(64bit)
>> rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
>> rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
>> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
>> rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
>>
>> and the driver also installed libnvcuvid.so as:
>> /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**304.51/libnvcuvid.so.1
>> /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**304.51/libnvcuvid.so.304.51
>>
>> As you can see, the new 310 driver, unlike the 304 driver, requires
>> libnvcuvid:
>> rpm -q --requires -p nvidia-graphics310.19-libs-**
>> 310.19-151.fc16.x86_64.rpm
>> /bin/sh
>> /bin/sh
>> libX11.so.6()(64bit)
>> libXext.so.6()(64bit)
>> libc.so.6()(64bit)
>> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
>> libdl.so.2()(64bit)
>> libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
>> libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
>> libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
>> libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit)
>> libm.so.6()(64bit)
>> libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
>> libnvcuvid.so()(64bit)
>> libnvidia-glcore.so.310.19()(**64bit)
>> libnvidia-tls.so.310.19()(**64bit)
>> libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
>> libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(**64bit)
>> librt.so.1()(64bit)
>> librt.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
>> libvdpau.so.1()(64bit)
>> libvdpau_nvidia.so.1()(64bit)
>> libvdpau_trace.so.1()(64bit)
>> libz.so.1()(64bit)
>> rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
>> rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
>> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
>> rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
>>
>>
>> But you can see that the package will install it:
>> rpm -q --filesbypkg -p nvidia-graphics310.19-libs-**
>> 310.19-151.fc16.x86_64.rpm
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**310.19
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libGL.so.1
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libGL.so.310.19
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libOpenCL.so.1
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libOpenCL.so.1.0
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libOpenCL.so.1.0.0
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libcuda.so.1
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libcuda.so.310.19
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libnvcuvid.so.1
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libnvcuvid.so.310.19
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libnvidia-cfg.so.1
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libnvidia-cfg.so.310.19
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libnvidia-compiler.so.**310.19
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libnvidia-encode.so.1
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libnvidia-encode.so.**310.19
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libnvidia-glcore.so.**310.19
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libnvidia-ml.so.1
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libnvidia-ml.so.310.19
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libnvidia-opencl.so.1
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libnvidia-opencl.so.**310.19
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libnvidia-tls.so.310.19
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libvdpau.so
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libvdpau.so.1
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libvdpau.so.310.19
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libvdpau_nvidia.so
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/libvdpau_trace.so
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**310.19/tls
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/tls/libnvidia-tls.so.**310.19
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**310.19/vdpau
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/vdpau/libvdpau_nvidia.**so.1
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/vdpau/libvdpau_nvidia.**so.310.19
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/vdpau/libvdpau_trace.**so.1
>> nvidia-graphics310.19-libs /usr/lib64/nvidia-graphics-**
>> 310.19/vdpau/libvdpau_trace.**so.310.19
>>
>>
>> Do you know where the "requires" variables are set? I am assuming
>> that it is something in the SPEC file. We could simply take the route of
>> prior drivers and eliminate libnvcuvid.so() from the list of requirements.
>> But it seems odd that it requires a file that it will install itself
>> without being aware that it will deliver its own "requirement".
>>
>> In any event, it seems that installing this with --nodeps will be OK,
>> but I would just prefer to fix the correct files so that others can
>> comfortably do the install.
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Paulo Cavalcanti <promac@gmail.com<mailto:
>> promac@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM, George Galt <
>> george.galt@gmail.com <mailto:george.galt@gmail.com>**> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Paulo Cavalcanti <
>> promac@gmail.com <mailto:promac@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 2:13 AM, O&M Ugarcina <
>> mo.ucina@gmail.com <mailto:mo.ucina@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> In each case, the path differs by the addition of
>> "nvidia-graphics-310.14" before the file being looked for. Does anyone
>> have any idea how to either adjust the spec file or alter the way it looks
>> for these files?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> George
>>
>> Hello Guys,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a fixed .src.rpm, here:
>>
>> http://people.atrpms.net/~**pcavalcanti/srpms/nvidia-**
>> graphics310.19-310.19-151.**fc17.src.rpm<http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/nvidia-graphics310.19-310.19-151.fc17.src.rpm>
>>
>> In fact, the fix was easy, and I just had to comment a few lines
>> in the
>> spec file.
>>
>> However, when installing, rpm keeps complaining about
>>
>> libnvcuvid.so()(64bit) is needed by nvidia-graphics310.19-libs-**
>> 310.19-151.fc17.x86_64
>>
>> I just used --nodeps and everything installs and runs fine.
>>
>> Maybe someone can take a look and figure what is going on...
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
>> DCC - UFRJ
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ______________________________**_________________
> atrpms-devel mailing list
> atrpms-devel@atrpms.net
> http://lists.atrpms.net/**mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel<http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel>
>

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:15 PM, George Galt <george.galt@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I've tried to follow the instructions on the Packaging Guidelines,
> but it doesn't seem to have worked for me. I'm reasonable new to RPM
> packaging, so I might be missing something.
>
> I've added
> %filter_from_requires '/libnvcuvid.so()(64bit)/d'
>
> after the lines
> Requires(post): nvidia-graphics-helpers
> %kmdl nvidia-graphics%{version}
> %kmdl_parentdependencies
>

Well, it does work:

........

#Requires: python2, pyxf86config >= 0.3.5
Requires(post): nvidia-graphics-helpers

%{?filter_setup:
%filter_from_requires /^libnvcuvid\.so/d;
%filter_setup
}

%kmdl nvidia-graphics%{version}
%kmdl_parentdependencies

......


I can upload a new .src.rpm, if you want.


--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
DCC - UFRJ

Really? I must have messed up building the src.rpm from the .spec file.
Oh, well. I'm just glad something worked. Please upload the src.rpm and
I'll build it too.

Thanks!!


On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Paulo Cavalcanti <promac@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:15 PM, George Galt <george.galt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, I've tried to follow the instructions on the Packaging Guidelines,
>> but it doesn't seem to have worked for me. I'm reasonable new to RPM
>> packaging, so I might be missing something.
>>
>> I've added
>> %filter_from_requires '/libnvcuvid.so()(64bit)/d'
>>
>> after the lines
>> Requires(post): nvidia-graphics-helpers
>> %kmdl nvidia-graphics%{version}
>> %kmdl_parentdependencies
>>
>
> Well, it does work:
>
> ........
>
> #Requires: python2, pyxf86config >= 0.3.5
> Requires(post): nvidia-graphics-helpers
>
> %{?filter_setup:
> %filter_from_requires /^libnvcuvid\.so/d;
> %filter_setup
> }
>
> %kmdl nvidia-graphics%{version}
> %kmdl_parentdependencies
>
> ......
>
>
> I can upload a new .src.rpm, if you want.
>
>
> --
> Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
> DCC - UFRJ
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> atrpms-devel mailing list
> atrpms-devel@atrpms.net
> http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
>

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM, George Galt <george.galt@gmail.com> wrote:

> Really? I must have messed up building the src.rpm from the .spec file.
> Oh, well. I'm just glad something worked. Please upload the src.rpm and
> I'll build it too.
>
> Thanks!!
>
>
I am re-uploading it now (same version, same file).
It should take some time because it is almost 100Mb.



--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ

Ouch! Thanks. I'll wait and give it a try a little later.


On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Paulo Cavalcanti <promac@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM, George Galt <george.galt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Really? I must have messed up building the src.rpm from the .spec file.
>> Oh, well. I'm just glad something worked. Please upload the src.rpm and
>> I'll build it too.
>>
>> Thanks!!
>>
>>
> I am re-uploading it now (same version, same file).
> It should take some time because it is almost 100Mb.
>
>
>
> --
> Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
> LCG - UFRJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> atrpms-devel mailing list
> atrpms-devel@atrpms.net
> http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
>

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:14 PM, George Galt <george.galt@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ouch! Thanks. I'll wait and give it a try a little later.
>
>

It is already there now...

--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
DCC - UFRJ

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!

George


On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Paulo Cavalcanti <promac@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:14 PM, George Galt <george.galt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ouch! Thanks. I'll wait and give it a try a little later.
>>
>>
>
> It is already there now...
>
> --
> Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
> DCC - UFRJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> atrpms-devel mailing list
> atrpms-devel@atrpms.net
> http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
>

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:08 PM, George Galt <george.galt@gmail.com> 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

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 <promac@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:08 PM, George Galt <george.galt@gmail.com>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
> atrpms-devel@atrpms.net
> http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
>

On 06/12/12 19:39, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:08 PM, George Galt <george.galt@gmail.com
> <mailto:george.galt@gmail.com>> 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
Hello Paulo,

Thanks for the srpm . I downloaded it yesterday , and built the rmps .
The building went without any error , very happy with that . When I
tried to i install on my centos 6 64 bit system , I got that same error
again complaining about libnvcuvid.so .

error: Failed dependencies:
libnvcuvid.so()(64bit) is needed by
nvidia-graphics310.19-libs-310.19-151.el6.x86_64

I just had to force it in , with --nodeps option , so far seems to be
working ok .


Best Regards

Milorad





_______________________________________________
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:42 AM, O&M Ugarcina <mo.ucina@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 06/12/12 19:39, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:08 PM, George Galt <george.galt@gmail.com<mailto:
>> george.galt@gmail.com>**> 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 ...."
>> .19-151.el6.x86_64
>>
>
> I just had to force it in , with --nodeps option , so far seems to be
> working ok .
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Milorad
>
>
>
This is because the macros I used to filter the "required"
should not be available for centos/rhel.

I have no solution for that...



--
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ