Bug 211214

Summary: lost 64 bit nv driver after security update
Product: [openSUSE] SUSE Linux 10.1 Reporter: Roger Larsson <roger.larsson>
Component: libzyppAssignee: Stefan Dirsch <sndirsch>
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Jiri Srain <jsrain>
Severity: Major    
Priority: P5 - None CC: sndirsch
Version: Final   
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: 64bit   
OS: SuSE Linux 10.1   
Whiteboard:
Found By: Customer Services Priority:
Business Priority: Blocker: ---
Marketing QA Status: --- IT Deployment: ---
Attachments: yast2 logs
The missing files

Description Roger Larsson 2006-10-09 23:40:46 UTC
see bug #208159

I did the update with YaST. Did it select the 32 bit version
on my 64 bit system?
Comment 1 Roger Larsson 2006-10-09 23:45:54 UTC
should be against libzypp (according to the old bug report)
Comment 2 Roger Larsson 2006-10-10 00:55:07 UTC
Created attachment 101072 [details]
yast2 logs

I think this is the interesting part...

2006-06-02 16:34:38 xorg-x11-server-6.9.0-48.x86_64.rpm installed ok
2006-06-02 16:43:15 xorg-x11-driver-video-6.9.0-46.i586.rpm installed ok
2006-06-02 16:47:19 xorg-x11-driver-video-nvidia-6.9.0-46.i586.rpm installed ok

Others are later when I try to fix the problem.
It is likely that I was running with the Nvidia binary drivers at the time of the update.

Security update broke Nvidia drivers (Linux kernel).
I tried to revert to nv drivers (failed due to the above problem)
Then I tried everything... like installing development kit and compile my own set of nv drivers.
Comment 3 Stefan Schubert 2006-10-17 08:52:42 UTC
There are missing logfile y2log .... y2log-3
Please attach these logfiles too.

Without these logfiles I cannot do very much, but:

"grep xorg-x11-driver-video y2logRPM " returns :

2006-06-02 16:43:15 xorg-x11-driver-video-6.9.0-46.i586.rpm installed ok
2006-06-02 16:47:19 xorg-x11-driver-video-nvidia-6.9.0-46.i586.rpm installed ok
2006-09-26 02:20:00 xorg-x11-driver-video-6.9.0-46.x86_64.rpm install failed
        package xorg-x11-driver-video-6.9.0-46.15 (which is newer than xorg-x11-driver-video-6.9.0-46) is already installed
2006-09-26 02:20:00 xorg-x11-driver-video-6.9.0-46.x86_64.rpm install failed
        package xorg-x11-driver-video-6.9.0-46.15 (which is newer than xorg-x11-driver-video-6.9.0-46) is already installed
2006-09-26 02:20:03 xorg-x11-driver-video-6.9.0-46.x86_64.rpm installed ok

Comment 4 Roger Larsson 2006-10-17 18:24:37 UTC
Created attachment 101750 [details]
The missing files

I pretty sure about what finally broke the install.
Security update of kernel => Nvidia failure =>
attempt to use nv driver.

But the nv driver was corrupted earlier...
(the corruption situation should have been included in the original logs)

The final breakage should be in the new logs.
Comment 5 Stefan Schubert 2006-10-19 09:21:09 UTC
Sorry, as you have already  mentioned in comment #2 you have made a lot. I cannot so anymore what you have on your system now and WHY;-)

Concerning:
"2006-06-02 16:47:19 xorg-x11-driver-video-nvidia-6.9.0-46.i586.rpm installed ok"
There is no y2log-* available, so I cannot see why and who is installing it.

Additional I have tested the kernel update again and it works very well.

Perhaps you can make a "rpm -q" in order to see what you have on your system.
I assign the bug to sndirsch@novell.com perhaps he has any glue what is going on here. And set it to "need info" for the "rpm -q" output.
Stefan have you already heard about that problem?
Comment 6 Roger Larsson 2006-10-19 19:02:39 UTC
# rpm -q
rpm: no arguments given for query

I guess that was not really what you were requesting...
take a look at the original bug #208159

When looking closer at the logs. I do think that 2006-06-02 was the date
when I upgraded from 10.0 to 10.1
You have now got all log files (file become to big to make ONE attachment originally). But I can not find the requested info in any of the files that
I have.

Is the upgrade properly logged on disk?
Comment 7 Stefan Dirsch 2006-10-19 19:18:34 UTC
I don't think it makes much sense to investigate a bugreport, which we cannot reproduce.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 208159 ***