nvidia-glx-new installs 386 kernel

[mewt]

Binary package hint: nvidia-glx-new

Upon upgrading to gutsy, I removed my manual install of the nvidia drivers (sudo sh nvidia-driver-version-here --uninstall) and installed nvidia-glx-new..this pulls with it a kernel image and it's restricted module with it..My problem is that since the kernel pulled is a -386 kernel (mewt@tehgraveyard:~$ uname -r
2.6.22-10-386) then i lose smp support that i had in -generic..

I guess users should be able to install nvidia-glx-new in their current kernel instead of losing functionality and increasing the size of their grub list for nothing

Mewt

[Sitsofe Wheeler (sitsofe)]

mewt:
I believe this comes about when linux-restricted-modules has been pulled up (by default it will be installed). I'm searching around to see if I can find the bug report that mentioned this...

[Sitsofe Wheeler (sitsofe)]

mewt:
I've had a look but I can't find the bug (if there ever was one) where this was mentioned in detail (Martin PItt briefly mentions the issue in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-restricted-modules-2.6.20/+bug/99122/comments/5 ). Basically because there is more than one linux-restricted package which can satisfy an install for nvidia-glx apt basically fell back to the wrong one. You would have already needed the correct linux-restricted-modules to have already been installed (which is generally the case unless you manually uninstall it) for it to guess correctly.

As a side note you may find that your system fails to keep the NVIDIA module up to date with kernel updates due to missing meta packages.

[mewt (mewt-reaper)]

might have been i had it uninstalled..but then again i think such a prob should be fixed by having the appropriate linux-restricted modules installed, not get a new one according to the kernel getting installed

[Marc Carson (baggageclaim)]

This happened to me too - it seemed that I lost a processor during the upgrade to Gutsy, when in fact I just had to rearrange the new menu.lst to default to "generic" instead of "386". I didn't notice the problem until one of my applications (Java) reported it to me.

[Daniel Hahler (blueyed)]

I'm marking it as duplicate of bug 148586, which appears to be the same problem.