[12:57] any how-to to activate gallium nouveau on maverick? xorg-edgers ppa doesn't contain the libgl1-dri-gallium package for maverick... [13:06] gzed: aiui it's in maverick already, libgl1-mesa-dri-experimental package [13:07] ok, gonna try it out, thanks [13:09] hmmm [13:09] ls /usr/lib/dri/gallium/ [13:09] i915_dri.so r600_dri.so swrast_dri.so [13:09] no nouveau in there [13:13] it's in /usr/lib/dri [13:14] aren't those the classic mesa drivers? [13:14] not necessarily [13:14] hmm [13:14] I think you're wrong [13:14] maybe [13:15] I used to have a /usr/lib/dri-gallium directory under lucid [13:15] the packaging has probably changed since [13:15] not until yesterday [13:15] I upgraded to maverick this morning... [13:16] well maverick has been in development since may [13:17] checking the packaging now [13:20] ..which is slow since a lot has changed since I touched mesa last :) [13:20] :) [13:21] never mind, I think I'll have to build from git to get to play with it again [13:23] it is the gallium driver btw [13:24] just installed in /usr/lib/dri so it's actually used by default [13:24] running the closed blob right now... :( [17:30] hey. i don't see any drivers in jockey [17:31] can i help troubleshoot? [17:45] you don't have nvidia-*-modaliases installed? [17:46] or the hw is too old [18:08] tjaalton: modaliases are installed, hw is 2 years max [18:08] now i can see drivers [18:08] but i bet it fails [18:08] like everytime [18:08] :( [18:08] i will paste the logfile, gimme a minute [18:10] tjaalton: http://paste2.org/p/1016479 [18:11] i emptied it before logging in and starting jockey [18:13] fails how? [18:13] it got installed [18:13] what's the last error then? [18:14] it also says now in jockey: a different version of this driver is in use [18:14] dunno [18:15] i try to restart, brb [18:15] there's no xorg.conf though. is that ok? [18:15] there's 256.53-0ubuntu3 available btw [18:15] yes [18:15] well, no [18:15] not with nvidia [18:15] so why doesn't jockey create it? [18:15] no idea [18:16] so maybe it is failing? [18:17] the error is because it's trying to create an alternative link for a file which only the 64bit package includes [18:17] which itself is a bug in the package, but shouldn't be fatal [18:17] also [18:17] does not currently work with xserver 1.9 [18:17] is an interesting error [18:17] but why doesn't your mirror have the latest files? [18:18] no [18:18] line 10 – 16 [18:18] thats for the old driveres [18:18] -e [18:18] -96 and -173, which don't support the new abi [18:18] installing nvdia-current by hand, then nvidia-xconfig works [18:19] so i only have problems getting jockey to work [18:21] xconfig should work just the same if it was installed via jockey [18:21] and since jockey is the recommended way it's sad :( [18:21] then file a bug [18:22] maybe the error is fatal for jockey [18:22] maybe, i don't know [18:22] so it doesn't create the conffile when installing on a 32bit system [18:22] but then it would be fatal on every non-64bit system [18:22] file a bug against nvidia-current.. [18:22] yes [18:23] jockey even says it failed installing, i should see the log [18:23] this wasn't the logfile? [18:24] the paste? it was /var/log/jockey.log [18:24] hey, i just upgraded my netbook to maverick and got the exact same problem as this: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1587153 [18:24] any ideas on how to fix? [18:24] also, standby does not work on my system with nouveau [18:24] i'd use it instead of nvidia, but no standby is a no-go [18:29] anyone? to summarise, i get a blank white screen after logging in [18:36] using gitk, vlc, blender, ding (i guess xlib) applications will crash my xserver, when using xinerama … [18:36] any pointers? [18:39] buggy nvidia? [18:52] probably [18:54] knittl, the errors listed on lines 779 and 780 are supposed to happen on i386. there is no way around it because dpkg doesn't support multi-arch yet [18:55] hmmm [18:56] well, it still fails while installing [18:57] and i cannot remove it using jockey [18:57] using nouveau now [18:57] no standby <<< xserver crashes [18:57] bjsnider: it's still a bug that it tries to add an alternative for a file that doesn't exist [18:57] and seems like it breaks jockey [18:58] the messages in that log specificaly say that the nvidia alternatives are being used and the kernel module is installed [18:58] so it worked [18:58] the install yes, but jockey still fails [18:59] i don't understand the distinction [18:59] if hte user rebooted it would work fine [18:59] it's not the nvidia install that creates xorg.conf [18:59] i mean maybe it didn't create the correct xorg.conf file? [19:00] but jockey [19:00] exactly [19:00] well then it's been broken the same way going back to lucid [19:00] maybe, or maybe jockey is being more picky in maverick [19:01] jockey says it failde [19:01] bjsnider: no it doesnt [19:01] rebooting will not work properly, because no xorg.conf is generated [19:05] that should be listed as a jockey bug if anything [19:06] it's a packaging bug in nvidia.. [19:06] at least [19:06] how would you suggest it be ffixed? [19:07] not add --slave #VDPAUDIR32#/libvdpau_nvidia.so.1 libvdpau_nvidia.so.1_lib32 #PKGVDPAUDIR32#/libvdpau_nvidia.so.1 \ [19:07] ..for the 32bit package [19:08] the nvidia-current postinst script specifically says that error message will occur on i386 and it is inconsequential [19:08] so it's not like it's a suprise that it's happening [19:08] well, maybe mvo will decide which one is wrong ;) [19:09] I don't see why including known(!) errors in a package is desired [19:09] it may be impossible to get around [19:09] no it's not [19:10] i don't see why you can't just do i arch=i386 then [19:10] you can always test for the arch [19:10] that's the .in file, with a lot of variables that are replaced with real values, so there's no reason it couldn't check the build architecture too [19:11] but it's been in there going back to lucid and it wasn't stopping i386 installs. so why is it a showstopper now? [19:14] like I said, jockey probably got changed [19:20] it didn't work in lucid for me either [19:22] for the same reason? [19:22] i guess. i don't know the reason [19:23] that was when nvidia-current was introduced [19:23] were you trying to use it on i386 then as well? [19:23] yes [19:24] it's the same system, only upgraded === yofel_ is now known as yfoel