2.6.25.4 source SFS file

Kirk has created a SFS file, for anyone who is interested. You can now easily compile modules, just download devx_401.sfs and kernel-src_401.sfs to /mnt/home, reboot and you're in business. Here is kirk's announcement:

I posted the kernel source sfs file for 4.1A here:

http://www.puppylinux.ca/tpp/kirk/kernel-src_401.sfs

and the md5sum:

http://www.puppylinux.ca/tpp/kirk/kernel-src_401.sfs.md5sum.txt

I compiled the ATI fglrx 8.5 video driver kernel module with it. Made a package out of it that includes the needed xorg libs. It's here:

http://www.puppylinux.ca/tpp/kirk/ATI_fglrx_Pup4.1-8.5.pet


But, you must be running 4.1alpha1 to do this. Puppy 4.00 is unsuitable as it has an older kernel. Well, in some cases I think you can compile a module for 2.6.25.4 even though a different kernel version is currently running, but I have no experience with doing that.

Posted on 29 May 2008, 8:54


Comments:

Posted on 29 May 2008, 8:33 by Raffy
Convenient
This is a big help to people trying their hands in compiling. Thanks!


Posted on 29 May 2008, 13:42 by nic2109
ATi fglrx 8.5
This .pet worked well for me, so thanks kirk.

I have just one observation - the frame rate is very slightly down on 8.4 and earlier (2470 vs 2495). I guess it's just got bigger like most things - except Puppy of course!


Posted on 29 May 2008, 19:07 by happypuppy
fglrx does NOT work properly,files missing
The PET package does not work properly.
The driver complains of a missing module glesx.so that is missing from the package.

I get horribly slow 2D performance with this fglrx .pet package - much slower than the worst experience you get when running Windows in Safe Mode with an ATI RadeonHD AGP card.It's *that* slow :(
The 3D works,but without 2D the driver is useless.
It may be those missing modules (glesx.so and esut.a) that are the root cause of this problem.

P.S. I get a 300fps lower glxgears score with this driver than with 8.4,but it supports a lot more features.



Posted on 29 May 2008, 20:10 by kirk
fglrx
The fglrx does not include all of the missing Xorg libraries, just enough to work (at least for me). If you need all of the Xorg Libraries, FIRST install the xorg_xorg_full_dri-7.3 pet package using petget, THEN install this fglrx pet package and reboot. Also, make sure you have a supported card. See:

https://a248.e.akamai.net/f/674/9206/0/www2.ati.com/drivers/linux/catalyst_85_linux.html


Note: You can't restart X once the fglrx driver is installed, the file system becomes unstable, you must reboot.



Posted on 29 May 2008, 22:13 by happypuppy
missing library
This is *not* a missing library that can be found in the xorg_xorg_full-dri-7.3 package.It's a part of the fglrx package that's installed during compilation.

I've just compiled the driver and tarred this lib if you need it:

http://qshare.com/get/210426/missinglib.tar.gz.html

You probably have an older ATI card,so that's why it was not needed.For newer cards you get no 2D acceleration without this lib.

As a test,I installed the fglrx PET package on a new test savefile,then put that missing lib in the modules directory and restarted X.2D acceleration worked like a charm.

There's something really odd with the newest ATI cards and the fglrx drivers - without 2D acceleration everything's horribly slow,except scrolling in the terminal window,which is blazingly fast.
With 2D acceleration enabled,everything is snappy except for scrolling in the terminal which becomes slow as molasses.

Old (R200 and R300-based) ATI cards had much better 2D support than these new models.



Posted on 30 May 2008, 4:49 by kirk
fglrx
Sorry about that. I just ran the installer again and there was glesx.so. My Radeon X300 mobility didn't miss it. 2D acceleration is not usually even needed on newer computers, leave it ATI. My FPS is much better with this version though. I re-uploaded the pet package and made a post on the forum. If you have other comments about this please direct them here:

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=202196#202196




Posted on 2 Jun 2008, 17:26 by happypuppy
not needed unless...
Sure,normal users with screens up to 10280x1024 won't even notice the difference,but try it at something like 1920x1200 (HD LCD),2048x1536 (22" CRT) or 2560x1600 (Apple Cinema Display).You'll be waiting 2 minutes for a small log file to scroll all the way down in a text editor.And if you're a true masochist looking for the 'best' experience,try to watch a video at this resolution.