Arch Linux User Repository

Please don't flag this package out-of-date unless a new version has been released by NVIDIA.

The DKMS package guidelines are explicit that linux-headers should not be a dependency of any DKMS package.

As a concrete example of why including that as a hard dependency is a bad idea, what happens when linux is not an installed kernel?

PACKAGE NEEDS LONG TERM MAINTAINER

I have adopted the 390xx packages to keep them secure. I do not run any 390xx hardware so will not notice any breakages and cannot test any changes.

Until such time as someone else steps up to maintain these packages - ideally someone who actually has 390xx hardware - I have to rely on you to tell me what changes are needed.

Don't expect a response if you post only "this doesn't work", and do not email me to complain about the package not working!

Use this forum thread for discussion: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1946926

A binary package is also available in my kernel-lts unofficial user repository.

thanks very much vnctdj, your efforts are highly appreciated!

Hi! I've just updated the package. Sorry for the delay, it's real life's fault! :)

@totofweb the package maintainer seems to be MIA. We already tried to contact him previously, and this package has been marked as out-of-date two weeks ago, however we still did't get any reply at all. I'm sure there is plenty of people willing to adopt the package if it becomes an Orphan, including myself, however this type of adoptions are not agile, nor quick at all, and there is a lot of bureaucracy involved in these kind of processes. We will have to wait for this process to advance, maybe a month or two.

If the patch works, would it be possible to update the package to include it?

thanks a lot for all efforts, with canolucas' patch the driver builds fine for kernel, kernel-lts and kernel-rt-lts

I just ment it's confusing for people, because they think that both patches are needed- one for kernel6.9 and another for gcc14, but they do the same (gcc14) job, so you should choose only ONE of them. Kernel6.9 as is- doesn't need any additional patch.

Great thanks to everyone who was involved in these patches!

Oh, you can name the patch posted by @canolucas anything you want. I just keep track of the patches by a simple convention of what prompted them. So I named the initial patch required for gcc-14 (gcc-14.patch) and the patch @canolucas kernel-6.9.patch. As noted they can be reduced to one. But call them whatever you like - I'm just glad they work!

@drankinatty naming this patch kernel-6.9.patch is quite confusing 'cause it does nothing to make NV drivers work with kernel 6.9. It just adds -fpermissive flag as workaround for gcc14 compilation errors. if you compile 6.9 kernel and NV drivers with older gcc- no patch is needed. In my opinion "oryginal gcc14.patch" is better solution because it adds workaround only for buggy conftest.sh instead of adding -fpermissive flag globally in Kbuild.

@drankinatty @canolucas Thanks for the patch works fine on 6.9 and 6.6.x lts