On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 16:47 +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Basically, make it look like it was before this change:
>
https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/nvidia&id=1b7954a332c32de0ef49a82806fbb18544b26949
Hi Thomas,
this caused a black screen for the kernel
On Jan 7, 2012 12:02 AM, "Thomas Bächler" wrote:
>
> Am 06.01.2012 16:57, schrieb Ralf Madorf:
> > On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 16:47 +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> >> Am 06.01.2012 16:32, schrieb Ralf Madorf:
> >>> [ 8.889] Current Operating System: Linux archlinux 3.0-rt #1 SMP
> >>> PREEMPT RT Mon
Am 06.01.2012 16:57, schrieb Ralf Madorf:
> On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 16:47 +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>> Am 06.01.2012 16:32, schrieb Ralf Madorf:
>>> [ 8.889] Current Operating System: Linux archlinux 3.0-rt #1 SMP
>>> PREEMPT RT Mon Dec 26 13:03:51 CET 2011 x86_64
>>
>> The -rt kernel package
On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 16:47 +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 06.01.2012 16:32, schrieb Ralf Madorf:
> > [ 8.889] Current Operating System: Linux archlinux 3.0-rt #1 SMP
> > PREEMPT RT Mon Dec 26 13:03:51 CET 2011 x86_64
>
> The -rt kernel package still uses the old versioning scheme, where th
PPS:
Regarding to the 3.1 vs 3.0 issue, is there the need to use an older
version of the proprietary nvidia driver with current kernel-rt? I don't
need the latest proprietary driver for my computer.
Am 06.01.2012 16:32, schrieb Ralf Madorf:
> [ 8.889] Current Operating System: Linux archlinux 3.0-rt #1 SMP
> PREEMPT RT Mon Dec 26 13:03:51 CET 2011 x86_64
The -rt kernel package still uses the old versioning scheme, where the
patchlevel is removed from the version string. This means that th
PS:
> I tried editing the AUR's kernel-rt (see 1. and 2. trial) and I tried to
should be ^ nvidia-rt PKGBUILD
> build a package using abs (see 3. trail), all failed.
On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 12:03 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Von: arch-general-boun...@archlinux.org im Auftrag von Thomas Bächler
> Gesendet: Fr 1/6/2012 11:28
> > I suspect the AUR's nvidia-rt will conflict with the package
> nvidia?!
> >
> > No, the AUR's nvidia-rt package should be what you want (i
Von: arch-general-boun...@archlinux.org im Auftrag von Thomas Bächler
Gesendet: Fr 1/6/2012 11:28
> I suspect the AUR's nvidia-rt will conflict with the package nvidia?!
>
> No, the AUR's nvidia-rt package should be what you want (if you diff the
> nvidia and nvidia-rt PKGBUILDs, the differences s
Am 06.01.2012 11:17, schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> Von: arch-general-boun...@archlinux.org im Auftrag von Thomas Bächler
> Gesendet: Fr 1/6/2012 10:25
>> Apparently, the nvidia-all PKGBUILD does it wrong. I don't know why it
>> exists - you can install nvidia from [extra] and create a package for
>> nvid
On Jan 6, 2012 5:25 PM, "Thomas Bächler" wrote:
>
> Am 06.01.2012 09:34, schrieb Ralf Madorf:
> > regarding to the rt issues I followed the explanations at
> > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=12132 .
> > I still get an issues with
> > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32908 .
> > I
Von: arch-general-boun...@archlinux.org im Auftrag von Thomas Bächler
Gesendet: Fr 1/6/2012 10:25
> Apparently, the nvidia-all PKGBUILD does it wrong. I don't know why it
> exists - you can install nvidia from [extra] and create a package for
> nvidia-rt. At least then you know the PKGBUILD does so
Am 06.01.2012 09:34, schrieb Ralf Madorf:
> regarding to the rt issues I followed the explanations at
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=12132 .
> I still get an issues with
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32908 .
> It's not only the described problem. If I boot 3.1.7-1-Arch I ge
Hi :)
regarding to the rt issues I followed the explanations at
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=12132 .
I still get an issues with
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32908 .
It's not only the described problem. If I boot 3.1.7-1-Arch I get
"nvidia: version magic '3.0-rt' should be '
14 matches
Mail list logo
