Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 107

Thread: fglrx in raring

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Beans
    12

    Re: fglrx in raring

    Any workaround to have any new driver or a radeon legacy driver running on kernel 3.7 or kernel 3.8 for radeon 4650?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Beans
    26

    Re: fglrx in raring

    Quote Originally Posted by jfernyhough View Post
    Apologies. Instead of manually binary patching the driver you can just replace the control file which tells the driver which card IDs are supported. Given that the latest driver is based on a driver for embedded devices most normal desktop parts aren't supported by that driver. Replacing the control file with one from a desktop release simply replaces the compatible ID list.

    In theory there may be incompatibilities between the beta driver releases and unsupported devices, which is why you get the watermark, but in practice the drivers have been pretty much the same.
    Gotcha, thanks for the info.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Just call me JF
    Beans
    1,052
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: fglrx in raring

    Quote Originally Posted by erickwill View Post
    Any workaround to have any new driver or a radeon legacy driver running on kernel 3.7 or kernel 3.8 for radeon 4650?
    There is a patch on the Arch AUR that might give you kernel 3.7 support with xserver 1.12:

    https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/c...-total-hd234k/

    You'll have to download the tarball (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/c...-hd234k.tar.gz), extract the patch, and patch manually as previously (e.g. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1988444)
    Last edited by jfernyhough; January 14th, 2013 at 10:08 PM.
    1) Dell Studio 1749: i5 540 (2.5GHz), 8GB, ATi 5650, Intel 5300AGN XFCE@Manjaro-x64
    2) Lenovo X61: C2D T7200, 2GB, Intel HDA, iwlwifi, XFCE@Manjaro-x64
    3) Compaq Mini 311c: Atom N270 (OC@2.0GHz), 3GB, Nvidia ION, Broadcom G+BT XFCE@13.10x32

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Just call me JF
    Beans
    1,052
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: fglrx in raring

    Looks like there is a new driver (13.1) landing on Wednesday. This is probably based on the 12.12 embedded driver we already have in raring so I don't imagine there will be any major changes.

    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewD
    Just a heads up - we will be posting logo certified Catalyst 13.1 on Wednesday. You can also expect new beta drivers in the next few weeks
    1) Dell Studio 1749: i5 540 (2.5GHz), 8GB, ATi 5650, Intel 5300AGN XFCE@Manjaro-x64
    2) Lenovo X61: C2D T7200, 2GB, Intel HDA, iwlwifi, XFCE@Manjaro-x64
    3) Compaq Mini 311c: Atom N270 (OC@2.0GHz), 3GB, Nvidia ION, Broadcom G+BT XFCE@13.10x32

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Beans
    12

    Re: fglrx in raring

    Quote Originally Posted by jfernyhough View Post
    There is a patch on the Arch AUR that might give you kernel 3.7 support with xserver 1.12:

    https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/c...-total-hd234k/

    You'll have to download the tarball (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/c...-hd234k.tar.gz), extract the patch, and patch manually as previously (e.g. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1988444)
    Thank you very much!
    Let me give this a shot and bring here the results

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Beans
    12

    Re: fglrx in raring

    Quote Originally Posted by jfernyhough View Post
    There is a patch on the Arch AUR that might give you kernel 3.7 support with xserver 1.12:

    https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/c...-total-hd234k/

    You'll have to download the tarball (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/c...-hd234k.tar.gz), extract the patch, and patch manually as previously (e.g. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1988444)
    Hey JF,

    Well, I tried all steps you mentioned but I am stuck at the recompilation process. Additionally I couldn't install dh-modaliases. I forgot to mention that I am on Debian Wheezy, using stock kernel 3.2 but wishing to switch to some recent kernel.

    Here is what I got while recompiling:
    Code:
    erick@quarktech01:~/temp/amd$ ./ati-installer.sh 8.980 --buildpkg Debian/testing=====================================================================
     AMD Catalyst(TM) Proprietary Driver Installer/Packager 
    =====================================================================
    Generating package: Debian/testing
    cp: cannot stat `/home/erick/temp/amd/x710_64a/*': No such file or directory
    Package build failed!
    Package build utility output:
    dpkg-buildpackage: source package fglrx-installer
    dpkg-buildpackage: source version 8.97.100.3-1
    dpkg-buildpackage: source changed by AMD: Advanced Micro Devices. <http://ati.amd.com/support/driver.html>
     dpkg-source --before-build fglrx.67itKm
    dpkg-buildpackage: host architecture amd64
     debian/rules build
    dh_testdir
    # move licenses away from binary dir
    if [ ! -d usr/share/doc/fglrx ]; then \
    	  mkdir -p usr/share/doc/fglrx; \
    	  mv usr/X11R6/bin/LICENSE.* usr/share/doc/fglrx; \
    	fi
    # set executable on user apps
    find usr/X11R6/bin -type f | xargs chmod a+x
    # remove exec bit from files that don't deserve it
    find usr/X11R6/include \
    	     usr/X11R6/lib \
    	     usr/X11R6/lib64 \
    	     usr/share usr/src     -type f | xargs chmod -x
    find: `usr/X11R6/include': No such file or directory
    find lib -not -name "*.sh" -type f | xargs chmod -x
    find lib      -name "*.sh" -type f | xargs chmod +x
    # set proper permissions on /etc files
    if [ -d etc/ati ]; then			\
    		chmod 755 etc/ati ;			\
    		chmod 644 etc/ati/* ;		\
    		chmod a+x etc/ati/*.sh ;	\
    	fi
    if [ -f debian/fglrx.default ]; then \
    	  mv -v debian/fglrx.default debian/fglrx; \
    	fi
    `debian/fglrx.default' -> `debian/fglrx'
    # remove exec bit from 64-bit libs too
    find usr/X11R6/lib64       -type f | xargs chmod -x
     fakeroot debian/rules binary
    dh_testdir
    # move licenses away from binary dir
    if [ ! -d usr/share/doc/fglrx ]; then \
    	  mkdir -p usr/share/doc/fglrx; \
    	  mv usr/X11R6/bin/LICENSE.* usr/share/doc/fglrx; \
    	fi
    # set executable on user apps
    find usr/X11R6/bin -type f | xargs chmod a+x
    # remove exec bit from files that don't deserve it
    find usr/X11R6/include \
    	     usr/X11R6/lib \
    	     usr/X11R6/lib64 \
    	     usr/share usr/src     -type f | xargs chmod -x
    find: `usr/X11R6/include': No such file or directory
    find lib -not -name "*.sh" -type f | xargs chmod -x
    find lib      -name "*.sh" -type f | xargs chmod +x
    # set proper permissions on /etc files
    if [ -d etc/ati ]; then			\
    		chmod 755 etc/ati ;			\
    		chmod 644 etc/ati/* ;		\
    		chmod a+x etc/ati/*.sh ;	\
    	fi
    if [ -f debian/fglrx.default ]; then \
    	  mv -v debian/fglrx.default debian/fglrx; \
    	fi
    # remove exec bit from 64-bit libs too
    find usr/X11R6/lib64       -type f | xargs chmod -x
    dh_testdir
    dh_testroot
    dh_clean -k
    dh_clean: dh_clean -k is deprecated; use dh_prep instead
    dh_clean: Compatibility levels before 5 are deprecated (level 4 in use)
    dh_installdirs
    dh_installdirs: Compatibility levels before 5 are deprecated (level 4 in use)
    # Create the directories to install into
    dh_installdirs -pfglrx-driver \
    		usr \
    		usr/lib/xorg \
    		usr/lib/xorg/modules \
    		usr/lib/dri \
    		usr/bin \
    		usr/sbin \
    		etc/acpi \
    		etc/acpi/events \
    		etc/default \
    		etc/X11/Xsession.d
    dh_installdirs: Compatibility levels before 5 are deprecated (level 4 in use)
    # the amd64 package includes 32bit compatibility libraries
    dh_installdirs -pfglrx-driver \
    		emul/ia32-linux/usr/lib \
    		emul/ia32-linux/usr/lib/xorg \
    		emul/ia32-linux/usr/lib/xorg/modules \
    		emul/ia32-linux/usr/lib/dri
    dh_installdirs: Compatibility levels before 5 are deprecated (level 4 in use)
    dh_installdirs -pfglrx-driver-dev \
    		usr \
    		usr/include \
    		usr/lib
    dh_installdirs: Compatibility levels before 5 are deprecated (level 4 in use)
    dh_installdirs -pfglrx-kernel-src \
    		usr/src/modules/fglrx \
    		usr/src/modules/fglrx/debian
    dh_installdirs: Compatibility levels before 5 are deprecated (level 4 in use)
    dh_installdirs -A -pfglrx-amdcccle \
    		usr \
    		usr/bin \
    		usr/share \
    		usr/share/applnk \
    		usr/share/applications \
    		usr/share/icons \
    		usr/share/pixmaps
    dh_installdirs: Compatibility levels before 5 are deprecated (level 4 in use)
    dh_installdirs -p \
    		usr/src
    dh_installdirs: Compatibility levels before 5 are deprecated (level 4 in use)
    dh_install
    dh_install: Compatibility levels before 5 are deprecated (level 4 in use)
    ldconfig -n usr/X11R6/lib/
    make: ldconfig: Command not found
    make: *** [binary] Error 127
    dpkg-buildpackage: error: fakeroot debian/rules binary gave error exit status 2
    Appreciate any thoughts and thanks for your kind collaboration since seems AMD just **** us off.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Just call me JF
    Beans
    1,052
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: fglrx in raring

    Firstly I've no idea how the Debian build environment differs to that of Ubuntu. In theory it should be compatible, but the fglrx driver debs in the respective repos are certainly of a different composition.

    The most obvious thing is that you are trying to build for Debian/testing but the four Debian releases supported by the fglrx installer are named as etch, lenny, sid, and experimental. Hence I would try building for Debian/sid and see if that helps.
    Last edited by jfernyhough; January 15th, 2013 at 01:21 AM. Reason: s/released/releases/
    1) Dell Studio 1749: i5 540 (2.5GHz), 8GB, ATi 5650, Intel 5300AGN XFCE@Manjaro-x64
    2) Lenovo X61: C2D T7200, 2GB, Intel HDA, iwlwifi, XFCE@Manjaro-x64
    3) Compaq Mini 311c: Atom N270 (OC@2.0GHz), 3GB, Nvidia ION, Broadcom G+BT XFCE@13.10x32

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Beans
    12

    Re: fglrx in raring

    Quote Originally Posted by jfernyhough View Post
    Firstly I've no idea how the Debian build environment differs to that of Ubuntu. In theory it should be compatible, but the fglrx driver debs in the respective repos are certainly of a different composition.

    The most obvious thing is that you are trying to build for Debian/testing but the four Debian releases supported by the fglrx installer are named as etch, lenny, sid, and experimental. Hence I would try building for Debian/sid and see if that helps.
    Maybe I can be strongly wrong in my idea, but at my first sight Ubuntu and Debian share a very similar architecture, otherwise I wouldn't be able to use a ubuntu kernel into debian, and I can confirm that is pretty much compatible.
    I found in those log lines that there is a Debian/testing mention (that is correspondent to Wheezy).. and for this reason I wondered that should be a light at the end..
    Again, appreciated all help and collaboration mainly why we are not in a Debian forum.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Just call me JF
    Beans
    1,052
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: fglrx in raring

    Right. The log says it's trying to generate a package for Debian/testing. Unfortunately there are no files within the driver package that support "testing" or "wheezy". The four that are named are "etch" "lenny" "sid" and "experimental"; when the driver installer is extracted the supported releases can be seen in packages/Debian/dists

    This is why I suggested trying to build with "Debian/sid" instead of "Debian/testing". Not using a different release, just a change in command.

    Finally, there is a difference between the fglrx packages in Ubuntu and Debian, that is, you can't install the Debian fglrx-driver and fglrx-control debs in Ubuntu without some dependency problems, and you can't install the Ubuntu fglrx and fglrx-amdcccle debs in Debian. The binary driver itself will be the same, it's the generated deb files that are different. Look at what happens if you add sid sources to Ubuntu, or add random PPAs to Debian.
    1) Dell Studio 1749: i5 540 (2.5GHz), 8GB, ATi 5650, Intel 5300AGN XFCE@Manjaro-x64
    2) Lenovo X61: C2D T7200, 2GB, Intel HDA, iwlwifi, XFCE@Manjaro-x64
    3) Compaq Mini 311c: Atom N270 (OC@2.0GHz), 3GB, Nvidia ION, Broadcom G+BT XFCE@13.10x32

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Beans
    12

    Re: fglrx in raring

    Quote Originally Posted by jfernyhough View Post
    Right. The log says it's trying to generate a package for Debian/testing. Unfortunately there are no files within the driver package that support "testing" or "wheezy". The four that are named are "etch" "lenny" "sid" and "experimental"; when the driver installer is extracted the supported releases can be seen in packages/Debian/dists

    This is why I suggested trying to build with "Debian/sid" instead of "Debian/testing". Not using a different release, just a change in command.

    Finally, there is a difference between the fglrx packages in Ubuntu and Debian, that is, you can't install the Debian fglrx-driver and fglrx-control debs in Ubuntu without some dependency problems, and you can't install the Ubuntu fglrx and fglrx-amdcccle debs in Debian. The binary driver itself will be the same, it's the generated deb files that are different. Look at what happens if you add sid sources to Ubuntu, or add random PPAs to Debian.

    Got it. Thank you for the clarification.
    I will try your advice to compile for Debian/sid.
    Appreciated!

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •