Thank you. I'm going to have a try at getting this to work tomorrow.
Awesome support! I'm really impressed.
Regards,
Grant
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Lumenary <email address hidden> wrote:
> Upgrading to kernel
>
> ........ 2.6.32-24-generic_2.6.32-24.43_amd64
>
> definitely breaks
>
> ........ fglrx_2:8.723.1-0ubuntu4_amd64
>
> from the Canonical official Lucid repository and these versions from the
> Ubuntu X-Swat PPA:
>
> ........ fglrx_2:8.753-0ubuntu0sarvatt~lucid_amd64
> ........ fglrx_2:8.762-0ubuntu0sarvatt~lucid_amd64
> ........ fglrx_2:8.771-0ubuntu0sarvatt~lucid_amd64
>
>
> All of the above versions of the ATi restricted/proprietary drivers worked
> under kernel
>
> ........ 2.6.32-24-generic_2.6.32-24.42_amd64
>
> and earlier.
>
>
> DKMS make logs to follow.
>
> --
> package fglrx 2:8.723.1-0ubuntu4 failed to install/upgrade: fglrx kernel
> module failed to build
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/642518
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of a duplicate bug (641787).
>
Hi,
Thank you. I'm going to have a try at getting this to work tomorrow.
Awesome support! I'm really impressed.
Regards,
Grant
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Lumenary <email address hidden> wrote:
> Upgrading to kernel 24-generic_ 2.6.32- 24.43_amd64 8.723.1- 0ubuntu4_ amd64 8.753-0ubuntu0s arvatt~ lucid_amd64 8.762-0ubuntu0s arvatt~ lucid_amd64 8.771-0ubuntu0s arvatt~ lucid_amd64 proprietary drivers worked 24-generic_ 2.6.32- 24.42_amd64 /bugs.launchpad .net/bugs/ 642518
>
> ........ 2.6.32-
>
> definitely breaks
>
> ........ fglrx_2:
>
> from the Canonical official Lucid repository and these versions from the
> Ubuntu X-Swat PPA:
>
> ........ fglrx_2:
> ........ fglrx_2:
> ........ fglrx_2:
>
>
> All of the above versions of the ATi restricted/
> under kernel
>
> ........ 2.6.32-
>
> and earlier.
>
>
> DKMS make logs to follow.
>
> --
> package fglrx 2:8.723.1-0ubuntu4 failed to install/upgrade: fglrx kernel
> module failed to build
> https:/
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of a duplicate bug (641787).
>