Bug#610021: /#610022: fglrx-glx fails to install in parallel with nvidia-glx

Patrick Matthäi pmatthaei at debian.org
Mon Jan 24 08:24:55 UTC 2011

Am 24.01.2011 02:48, schrieb Andreas Beckmann:
> There are three new packages libgl1-nvidia-alternatives,
> libgl1-nvidia-alternatives-ia32, libgl1-nvidia-alternatives-ia32 that do the
> diversions of OpenGL libraries (from libgl1-mesa-glx, ia32-libs, *-dev) and
> create alternatives of the diverted files. The diversions are created/removed
> by dpkg triggers whenever the diverted packages are (un-)installed.
> The nvidia packages Depends: on the lib*-nvidia-alternatives package for the
> library they provide, install the "new" library in a private library
> directory (/usr/lib/nvidia) and add an alternative (with higher priority than
> the diverted library from mesa).
> There are currently a lot of Conflicts defined to make sure only one of
> nvidia-graphics-drivers, nvidia-graphics-drivers-legacy-173xx or
> nvidia-graphics-drivers-legacy-96xx can be installed at a time. (legacy-71xx
> is no longer supported with current Xorg.) Most of these Conflicts should not
> be necessary since there are no more file name conflicts for the libraries.
> There are file name conflicts for nvidia_drv.so (the Xorg driver module)
> libglx.so (the replaced Xorg module) and nvidia.ko (the kernel module which
> may exist for any number of distribution and custom kernels at the same time)
> and I currently have no solution how to solve these to allow installing both
> nvidia-graphics-drivers as well as one (or two) legacy versions at the same
> time. Could we rename them eventually? Alternatively (at least for the xorg
> modules) we could set up one more set of alternatives.

Sounds like things getting complicated..

>>>> So by installing fglrx it is also not possible to use
>>>> another 3d accelerated gpu driver anymore.
>>> It is, you just need to use update-alternative.
> And it does work for nvidia-glx :-)

Don't forget, that it may damage your card, if you use a not supported 
combination, that is why IMHO this is broken!

> Something I can offer to the fglrx maintainers is to generalize the
> diversion/alternatives packages so that it supports fglrx, too. This should
> be not too difficult. But eventually we should rename the packages (something
> that contains "xorg" and "non-free" perhaps?) and move the location of the
> diversions to remove the references to nvidia.
> I can also help getting the diversions migrated properly and the alternatives
> set up.

Or providing patches?
Maybe I would agree with a fglrx package called e.g. fglrx-driver-live, 
which will do those things.

> Does fglrx have some "legacy" versions, too, or does the current driver
> version still support all cards that were ever supported by fglrx?

No, old cards are dropped.

More information about the pkg-nvidia-devel mailing list