nvidia_x11_beta: reinit at 410.57#45030
Conversation
|
Is it really needed to completely disable 32 bit support on 64 bit Systems? As far as i can see nvidia still provides 32 bit libraries. See for instance the arch pkgbuild. Currently Nix builds the i686 nvidia package and only links the 32 bit libraries from that package, one can still keep that, but for newer nvidia drivers the builder should probably be changed so we link the 32 bit libraries provided in the x86_64 package. |
6c8c58b to
204105a
Compare
|
Ah alright I'll look at that later when I have more time. |
204105a to
24acfb0
Compare
|
I would like to try out the changes from this branch on my system but I am not able to get the configuration of my system right. I also fail to find any information on how to achieve this, so excuse me for asking here. What is the proper way to apply this to my system? I have tried so far in the But it seams not to be enough. |
|
Personally I just use a local nixpkgs in which I rebase the changes and run The Also on 4.19-rc1 |
24acfb0 to
18389e3
Compare
18389e3 to
37aa253
Compare
|
Thank you, for the suggestion. It works fine with overlays. I was confused that the |
|
Without @baracoder's patch I get this when I launch steam: after the patch steam seems to work! |
|
Looks really nice :)! Do we need an assertion in the xserver module to stop somebody on a 32 bit system from trying to install beta drivers? As far as I can see currently it would just install 64 bit beta drivers. Haven't tested it though, so maybe this case is already handled? |
|
Haven't really testing anything using i686 though from what was committed, baracoder's patch seems to take care of that (committed as 2f3e3e9). |
|
I think |
|
If I'm not wrong 90136bb should be the way to do this? |
|
I think we are nearly there :). The assertion should probably be moved over into the nvidia or xserver module, because we only want to prevent that somebody actually sets nvidiaBeta as their driver on i686. The problem now is, that i686bundled will never be true, because of the added assertion, but we still want to build the i686 with the x86_64 package, since we will only link lib and share from that anyways. |
|
My understanding of nixpkgs is very limited, and so my patch is not that good. I did not change the build process: I see now, that packages can have multiple outputs. So adding an output for I will try that later today |
90136bb to
1dfb439
Compare
|
I have added a commit here: master...baracoder:nvidiaBeta
|
|
Seems to compile fine on 4.19 now without any patches. Also rebased to master. NVIDIA Optimus and Bumblebee work for me. |
59f76ae to
5bf5279
Compare
| cp -p nvidia_drv.so $bin/lib/xorg/modules/drivers | ||
| mkdir -p $bin/lib/xorg/modules/extensions | ||
| cp -p libglx.so.* $bin/lib/xorg/modules/extensions | ||
| cp -p libglxserver_nvidia.so* $bin/lib/xorg/modules/extensions |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note: While this filename might have changed in the new version, it did not in 390, but the builder script has to work with both. Changing it to libglx*.so* works with both.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry about that, I don't normally use 3xx drivers on my machine anymore so I kinda just forgot about that.
|
(maintainer) @vcunat ping |
| sha256 = sha256_32bit; | ||
| } | ||
| else if stdenv.hostPlatform.system == "x86_64-linux" then | ||
| if stdenv.hostPlatform.system == "x86_64-linux" then |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why was the order of i686 and x86_64 switched here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I remember what happened correctly, my system seemed to always evaluate i686 as true for some reason so I never got up to x86_64.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think in some intermediate commits, there was an additional check, which made this order more logical. I have tested with the reverted order and it works as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alright, I'll try changing it back tomorrow if the PR isn't merged by then.
|
@baracoder Unfortunately I still get the error mentioned by @jb55 when starting steam. I'm using a recent nixos-unstable (0a7e258) with the commits in this PR cherry-picked. Here's the full error when launched from the CLI: I'm using Graphics card (from Do I need to do something special to have 32 bit stuff enabled? |
|
@infinisil other then |
Oh, that was it indeed, enabling that makes steam work. But it's a bit odd to now require this setting, because steam worked without it before. Anyways, other than the minor things I mentioned above, this PR looks good to me. The only other thing is to fixup the commits a bit by squashing/renaming. |
infinisil
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See #45030 (comment)
The assertions should stay
bfd1d32 to
09e04fd
Compare
|
Recently a stable version 410.66 was released. I have cleaned up the accumulated changes and added the new stable version on my branch master...baracoder:nvidia-update |
|
@baracoder Ah nice. I think this is better kept for a separate PR though. @eadwu I think this looks good to merge now. Please squash the commits into some logical commits if possible. |
|
410.66 works on 4.19.0-rc8 through Optimus on my machine. |
09e04fd to
6faa340
Compare
6faa340 to
a81e27d
Compare
a81e27d to
21bb1fa
Compare
infinisil
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Awesome, thanks a lot for the PR <3

Motivation for this change
I prefer to use the latest drivers. Also @nyanloutre.
Things done
sandboxinnix.confon non-NixOS)nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"./result/bin/)nix path-info -Sbefore and after)