| darwin | The repository 'file:/dcd daedalus Release' is not signed. Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default. | 06:30 |
|---|---|---|
| rrq | how about [trusted=yes] between deb and file | 07:05 |
| greenjeans | Morning all | 18:44 |
| systemdlete | I've install fossil on several systems. According to "apt policy", all systems say it is version 2.21. However, when I run the executable, they report they are version 2.24, but one reports 2.21 (which corresponds with the package version). I tried "apt policy -t daedalus-backports fossil" just to see if I might have installed from the backports, but no change in the policy output. | 19:13 |
| systemdlete | All of my systems are getting packages via apt-cacher-ng, so I disabled it, re-ran apt update on the system in question, and ran "apt reinstall fossil" | 19:14 |
| systemdlete | but the binary continues to report it is at version 2.21, not 2.24 as on the other systems. | 19:14 |
| systemdlete | I do not deny I may have done something unseemly... like installing from a downloaded deb file, maybe from fossil-scm itself. | 19:15 |
| systemdlete | afaicr, I don't think I built fossil here. | 19:15 |
| systemdlete | I checked where "fossil" binary is being called from, and it is from /usr/bin/fossil in all cases. | 19:16 |
| systemdlete | oh. | 19:17 |
| systemdlete | I just visited their website, and I now recall having downloaded from there | 19:17 |
| systemdlete | and, sure enough, they download a tar file, not deb | 19:17 |
| systemdlete | so.... | 19:17 |
| systemdlete | nvm. | 19:18 |
| * systemdlete face reddens with embarassment | 19:18 | |
| systemdlete | the least I can do in this case is thank rubber duck | 19:18 |
| fluffywolf | lol | 19:19 |
| greenjeans | no worries man, i've done stuff waaaaay goofier than that | 19:23 |
| systemdlete | when they were giving out brains, I thought they said trains, and I guess I kind of missed mine | 20:21 |
| plasma41 | systemdlete: Quack! | 20:46 |
| systemdlete | quack quack quack | 20:50 |
| systemdlete | (It's becoming a habit lately...) | 20:50 |
| greenjeans | Feature-request: Would it be possible to get the qt6gtk2 package added to the Devuan repo? | 21:18 |
| greenjeans | I have a link to the .debs | 21:18 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | greetings. is there a possibility to get a more recent vversion of the nvidia driver? if I'm not mistaken, it's currently 535.216.01 you get when using "apt-get install nvidia-drivers". | 22:09 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | are there "pre-packaged" newer ones? | 22:09 |
| debdog | backports supplies 535.216.03-2~bpo12+1 | 22:15 |
| debdog | other than that I am not aware od any packaged ones | 22:15 |
| debdog | personally, I'd go for the installer provided by nvidia IF I would require a more up to date version | 22:16 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | ah... too bad. I was hoping to get the more recent 570 one... | 22:16 |
| debdog | but that has its pitfalls | 22:16 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | yeah, I remember those. | 22:17 |
| debdog | well, "I am not aware" does not mean there aren't any | 22:17 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | I'm glad the "regular" install worked so far without any damages. | 22:17 |
| debdog | maybe gnarface has an idea? | 22:21 |
| gnarface | just that a while back someone came in here and pointed out that nvidia has upstream tools available to build your own nvidia packages against any version, but i forget the specifics on how | 22:24 |
| gnarface | so it should be possible to make a backport of the most recent versions | 22:25 |
| gnarface | but my experience on using nvidia drivers suggests that if it's newer than what's already in backports it's probably more buggy than it's worth | 22:26 |
| gnarface | ...unless maybe you're in one of those rare situations where you just bought a brand new card during the customary 6-month cooldown period where they withold the driver update from linux to try to force you to install windows, and even then, only maybe | 22:27 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | nah, it's just an older 3090. a I would like to use the current system for gaming purposes I just wanted to be on the up-to-date side of things... | 22:29 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | *as I | 22:29 |
| gnarface | i would recommend just using the stable version unless it actually exhibits problems, then switch to backports | 22:30 |
| gnarface | and if backports is also buggy, just wait and hope, basically | 22:30 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | as usual also ;) | 22:31 |
| gnarface | though google's AI response suggests that building your own might not be as scary as it sounded... | 22:31 |
| gnarface | # Download and extract the NVIDIA source code | 22:31 |
| gnarface | wget https://download.nvidia.com/X-Window-System/linux-x86_64/nvidia-driver-latest.tar.gz | 22:31 |
| gnarface | tar -zxvf nvidia-driver-latest.tar.gz | 22:31 |
| gnarface | # Navigate to the source directory | 22:31 |
| gnarface | cd nvidia-driver-latest | 22:31 |
| gnarface | # Build the package using DKMS | 22:31 |
| gnarface | sudo dkms add . | 22:31 |
| gnarface | sudo dkms build -k `uname -r` | 22:31 |
| gnarface | sudo dkms install -k `uname -r` | 22:31 |
| gnarface | (dunno if it's really this easy, but that's what the AI says) | 22:31 |
| gnarface | for least chance of random crashes and other such gremlins though, like i said, stable or backports is the safest bet - don't be a superstitious version fetishist | 22:33 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | hm... I should give it a try... I mean, what could go wrong *cough* | 22:33 |
| debdog | sounds complicated. in former years one just downloaded and ran the installer | 22:33 |
| debdog | do not listen to AI | 22:33 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | I tried the installer back when Daedalus was in testing. ran into some issues that weren't explained anywhere. | 22:33 |
| gnarface | the installer should work too, in the short term, but it has long-term complications because it's not deb-dependency aware, so it tends to sabotage future upgrades | 22:33 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | who would know to switch off the desktop enviroment to install the driver? or what dependencies and/or packages you'd need for it... | 22:34 |
| gnarface | i generally advise against it unless it's one of those situations where you need it to play some game right now and don't care if your install is hosed later because of it | 22:34 |
| debdog | right gnarface. | 22:34 |
| debdog | one of the metioned pitfalls. always uninstall before an upgrade | 22:35 |
| gnarface | the thing that primarily turned me off from it was usually just that enough time and bottles of brandy had passed by then i'd already forgotten what i'd done, so inevitably it was the source of unexpected drama some months later while trying to do a release upgrade | 22:36 |
| gnarface | (i actually got so sick of this shuffle that began to show a pattern of actual malicious orchestration between WoW and Wine updates that i switched to AMD after +20 years) | 22:37 |
| debdog | right. back when I did that I regularily updated the driver and hence did not forget about it. today I am happy with the package provided by debian | 22:37 |
| debdog | hmm, *periodically | 22:39 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | I needed to move away from my trusty 1080TI as the "shield rendering bug" caused a game to crash. moved to the 3090 as the bug didn't get fixed. now I regret it as the 3090 isn't capable of SR-IOV, or at least nvidia isn't providing the drivers for it to do so. | 22:39 |
| gnarface | yea, all those types of problems mysteriously evaporated when i switched to AMD | 22:47 |
| gnarface | i won't claim there aren't still some tradeoffs - some of the inferior rendering quality complaints are still relevant - but they have performance on-par at least these days, and the rendering problems are much more rare | 22:49 |
| gnarface | (and also it was brought to my attention that in some of the issues where the AMD cards appear to render stuff slightly less nicely it's actually because AMD is following some standard completely by-the-book that Nvidia is violating just to get a visual edge) | 22:50 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | I read about the newer cards AMD is going to release in March (I think it was), and the cost is way lower than one of the 5070TI's (not talking about the 5080/5090 here)... | 22:53 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | yet I haven't checked if AMD's cards are up for SR-IOV. from what I gathered they will "only" sport 16GB of vram, so separating them into maybe two vm's will probably limit their use to 1080p. | 22:54 |
| gnarface | i can't claim i'm doing anything like that here | 22:55 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | I just had the idea some time ago to use the 3090 for that. sadly that didn't pan out so well. | 22:56 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | and adding a second card is somehow defeating the purpose. | 22:56 |
| [NoClan]GoAway | I could do that, yet the energy bill will probably kill my plan ^ | 22:57 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!