On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 06:40:39AM -0400, Michael Bonert wrote: > >> I can see a nvidia module in /lib/modules: > >> /lib/modules/2.4.18-bf2.4/kernel/drivers/video/nvidia.o > > > >That's the kernel module, you also need the glx driver. What does > >"dpkg -l nvidia-glx" return? > > It wasn't installed. I installed it, but it doesn't work yet. > Annoying is it appears that I'm pretty close now; the 'nvidia' module > isn't "unused" anymore (when I check it out with 'lsmod') and > "XFree86.0.log" doesn't give me any errors. When I 'startx' I get a > blank screen with a square cursor at the top left.
I'm not sure what is happening at this point. When you get this screen, can you switch to another console terminal? If so, can you provide the output of "ps axf > /tmp/ps.log" at the time? It might help to so what is running (or not) at the time. > Newbie Question: > Why wasn't the "nvidia-glx" package installed when I grabbed > 'nvidia-kernel-source'? > > I thought that the whole idea of 'apt-get' was to avoid having to > think about dependencies and thus avoid the dependency-frustration > that is a characteristic of RPM-based GNU/Linux distros. > > I can't help think this is bug, but don't see a bug report on it. Is > it a bug? You happened to start attempting to use the nvidia driver packages shortly after the installation methods changed. Originally, you had to compile both the kernel and glx driver. Now, there is a glx binary package in the actual archive. To require nvidia-glx when you installed nvidia-kernel-source would be incorrect as nvidia-glx is not needed by the nvidia-kernel-source package. However, when the resultant nvidia-kernel binary package was created it should have required nvidia-glx. -- Jamin W. Collins This is the typical unix way of doing things: you string together lots of very specific tools to accomplish larger tasks. -- Vineet Kumar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
