CentOS - Jul 2012 - Fwd: Re: kmod-nvidia?

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:37:52 -0400
From: Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu>
On Friday, July 20, 2012 05:30:14 PM m.roth at 5-cent.us
wrote:
> Stephen Harris wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 04:44:07PM -0400, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
> >> Available Packages
> >> kmod-nvidia.x86_64                      295.59-1.el6.elrepo
> > Yes, and it showed up in your list...
> > Or am I missing something?
>
> Think so. That was from my machine, where it's installed months ago. On
> the user's machine, all that shows, regardless of whether I disable all
> other repos and enable only elrepo, or if I use all and enable elrepo, all
> I see under available packages is nvidia-x11-drv. Sorry if I pasted in
> stuff to confuse.
Whoa, Mark.  Man, you must be tired.  The fact that your machine with
the 290 driver only sees the kmod-nvidia for 295 and does not see
nvidia-x11-drv is a big clue.

You might want to double check the includepkgs= line on the machine you
originally posted about (not this latest machine), and make sure that it
isn't:
includepkgs=nvidia-x11-drv

I can duplicate this behavior very easily, and can duplicate the reverse
behavior as well, by manipulating the includepkgs= line.  Here's an
example run, from a RHEL 6.3 machine (same would apply to CentOS, just
with a few differences in the yum output dealing with the RHN repos....):
<MVNCH>
Works fine.

The includpkgs= line has to include all dependencies, as it really does
do what the man page says it does.  Try it without the includepkgsline, or with
it commented out, and see if you get different results.

Thank you *so* much - this works. One oddity: originally, I'd had only
includepkgs=kmod-nvidia, *not* the nvidia-x11-drv. My last try, last week,
I'd added extra lines with that on two separate lines:
includepkgs=kmod-nvidia
includepkgs=nvidia-x11-drv

Just now, following your example, I put them on one line
includepkgs=nvidia-x11-drv kmod-nvidia

and it worked with no problem at all.

Odd.

And for the guy from the elrepo team, you'll note it was *not* an elrepo
problem, which is what I'd suspected, unless the repodata file's changed
since Friday.

        mark

On 23/07/12 15:48, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>
> And for the guy from the elrepo team, you'll note it was *not* an
elrepo
> problem, which is what I'd suspected, unless the repodata file's
changed
> since Friday.
>
It was a problem caused by *you* editing the default elrepo config file 
and not understanding the implications and subsequent problems caused by 
*your* changes. So you are correct that it was not an elrepo problem, it 
was a "user" issue.

No one ever said it was an elrepo problem, it was noted that the elrepo 
mailing list was a more appropriate place to deal with issues relating 
to the elrepo.repo config file as this has absolutely nothing to do with 
CentOS.

The point is that you would have been given the solution a lot quicker 
if you had just posted the whole config file when you were asked rather 
than waste everyone's time with your attitude.

Honestly, most people on this list are here to try to help you. It makes 
it a *lot* easier to help people if they follow the instructions they 
are given rather than try to second guess which information they should 
provide.