Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : installing nVidia graphics card - help
sharkzf6
01-23-2005, 08:01 PM
X/KDM is working great with my old GeForce 2. Now, I'm trying to get the 3D drivers installed (66.29) from nVidias driver page. I exit X and run the install program. It fails because it can't find the source files to compile an interface. I followed instructions in a MaxPC article and used apt-get install for kernel-source-2.4.18, kernel-headers-2.4.18-686 (I have a P3 Coppermine), and kernel-headers-2.4.18-bf2.4. The nVidia install program still insists that it can't find the source files. It recomended if I was sure they are installed that I provide the path. OK, I'm a newb and I'm confused. Can someone provide some guidence on this task? Thanks.
bwkaz
01-23-2005, 10:07 PM
What does uname -r say?
What does the /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build symlink point to? Does it even exist?
You need the version of kernel-sources that matches whatever "uname -r" said. This package should also install the /lib/modules/.../build symlink for you.
That symlink is what the nVidia drivers check for first when they build their kernel module.
sharkzf6
01-23-2005, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by bwkaz
What does uname -r say?
2.4.18-bf2.4, same as the packages I installed with apt-get
What does the /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build symlink point to? Does it even exist?
no, it does not exist...
You need the version of kernel-sources that matches whatever "uname -r" said. This package should also install the /lib/modules/.../build symlink for you.
That symlink is what the nVidia drivers check for first when they build their kernel module.
so what did I do wrong, I got the right packages and installed them with apt-get install...???
Another possibility:
It happened to me recently, I got the same message.
After a while I realized I was trying to install nvidia-driver for 2.4-kernel but was running a 2.6.
So check what kernelversion the driver is for!
sharkzf6
01-24-2005, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by x
Another possibility:
It happened to me recently, I got the same message.
After a while I realized I was trying to install nvidia-driver for 2.4-kernel but was running a 2.6.
So check what kernelversion the driver is for!
oo - I thought nVidia drivers where universal, just as with Windows. It doesn't say anthting about which kernel you have on nVidia's web site?! Are you sure about this?
The driver is universal - but different for different kernelversions (family's, that is.)
(Like a driver for Win98 doesn't work for WinXP.)
It was the problem for me.
I don't know about the latest nvidia-drivers, this happened in july running my first 2.6-distro.
And I remember that the driver I downloaded lateron for kernel 2.6 had the same name as the driver for 2.4...
cybertron
01-24-2005, 11:52 AM
Umm, I don't think there are separate versions for 2.4 and 2.6 (at least not anymore). At some point there may have been not long after the 2.6 kernel came out because some of the older versions didn't support 2.6, but now I'm pretty sure they just have support for both in one driver package.
Besides that I don't see any other drivers on the nvidia site:)
sharkzf6
01-24-2005, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by cybertron
Umm, I don't think there are separate versions for 2.4 and 2.6 (at least not anymore). At some point there may have been not long after the 2.6 kernel came out because some of the older versions didn't support 2.6, but now I'm pretty sure they just have support for both in one driver package.
Besides that I don't see any other drivers on the nvidia site:)
I agree. There is only 1 link to Linux drivers on nVidias web site. I am under the impession it will work with all kernels from 2.4 on and there isn't any info to reflect otherwise.
hard candy
01-24-2005, 12:44 PM
There was some problem with the nvidia installer finding the source directory on some distros. Try one of the older versions of the nvidia driver and see how it works, if it installs, then the driver install program is the problem, there were some fixes posted on the nv-linux forums.
sharkzf6
01-24-2005, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by hard candy
There was some problem with the nvidia installer finding the source directory on some distros. Try one of the older versions of the nvidia driver and see how it works, if it installs, then the driver install program is the problem, there were some fixes posted on the nv-linux forums.
On another forum I was informed that perhaps I didn't apt-get install the correct packages. I verified that I did, however, in the process I discovered there was no linking file created. Is this a problem or does that not apply to me? When I tried to apt-get install the kernel-source files again, it said they were already installed. I think you my be correct about trying an older version of the nVidia drivers since they seem to be geared toward 2.6 as everybody seems to be using that kernel now. Thanks.
psi42
01-24-2005, 01:29 PM
/lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build should be a symlink to /usr/src/linux.
The kernel sources should be in /usr/src/linux, which is a symlink to /usr/src/linux-$(uname -r)
If you do a
du -Dh /usr/src/linux
You should see about 200 MB of stuff...
sharkzf6
01-24-2005, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by psi42
/lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build should be a symlink to /usr/src/linux.
The kernel sources should be in /usr/src/linux, which is a symlink to /usr/src/linux-$(uname -r)
If you do a
du -Dh /usr/src/linux
You should see about 200 MB of stuff...
Right, this is where the question comes from. I have no /lib/modules/2.4.18/build link file. The folder is there with the package files, but there's no 'linking' file in that folder at all, let alone one named 'build'..???
cybertron
01-24-2005, 03:25 PM
Then you should be able to cd into the /lib/modules/$(uname -r) directory and do a "ln -s /usr/src/$(uname -r) build" to create the link. It should be able to find your kernel source then.
sharkzf6
01-24-2005, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by cybertron
Then you should be able to cd into the /lib/modules/$(uname -r) directory and do a "ln -s /usr/src/$(uname -r) build" to create the link. It should be able to find your kernel source then.
The source files are zipped do I need to unzip and , if so, where do I put them? Thanks.
hard candy
01-24-2005, 05:46 PM
What extension is the source file? bz2, gz, etc.
sharkzf6
01-24-2005, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by hard candy
What extension is the source file? bz2, gz, etc.
bz2
bwkaz
01-24-2005, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by psi42
/lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build should be a symlink to /usr/src/linux. No, it should not.
It should be a symlink to wherever your kernel sources are, NOT a symlink to another symlink. The reason is that /lib/modules/2.6.7/build MUST ALWAYS be a symlink to the sources for kernel 2.6.7, even if you change the /usr/src/linux symlink (or if you do as I did, and delete it, since it serves no purpose except to confuse cdrtools and some kernel drivers). In fact, at one time, I saw a recommendation from Linus that root should NEVER compile a kernel (which would be required if you keep the sources in /usr/src), and the recommended practice was actually to build the kernel in your home directory, never touching /usr/src.
And yes, this was after /usr/include/linux was turned from a symlink into a directory, so it had nothing to do with that.
cybertron
01-24-2005, 09:38 PM
Try "tar xjvf filename.tar.bz2" then. As bwkaz said, you may not necessarily want to put it in /usr/src either. I generally keep my kernel sources elsewhere so I can compile them as a regular user.
sharkzf6
01-24-2005, 09:49 PM
Ya know what, I'm in the process of downloading the latest Sarge iso's dated 17 Jan 05. I'm going to start all over from scratch with the 2.6 kernel and go from there. I may be re-visiting this topic in a few days once I get everything else up and running with Sarge. Wish me luck and thanks for all the input. I'm learning more and more about this Linux each and every hour and I'm starting to like it. :D