since catalyst 9.10 now package generation is somehow broken (at least for me) but I got it to work (described here)
I refined the workaround and build a shell script which does all that automatically for you ( I don’t see a file upload here, so I’ll put the script in text):
catalyst_911-suse112.sh
#!/bin/bash
sh ./ati-driver-installer-9-11-x86.x86_64.run --extract fglrx-install.11
pushd fglrx-install.11
patch -p1 < ../fglrx-install.11.diff
if X`uname -m` = "Xx86_64" ]; then
./packages/SuSE/ati-packager.sh --buildpkg SUSE112-AMD64
else
./packages/SuSE/ati-packager.sh --buildpkg SUSE112-IA32
fi
popd
fglrx-install.11.diff
diff -U 3 -H -d -r -N -- fglrx-install.11.orig/packages/SuSE/ati-packager.sh fglrx-install.11.new/packages/SuSE/ati-packager.sh
--- fglrx-install.11.orig/packages/SuSE/ati-packager.sh 2009-11-12 07:07:59.000000000 +0100
+++ fglrx-install.11.new/packages/SuSE/ati-packager.sh 2009-11-18 09:46:35.275689274 +0100
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@
END_SED_SCRIPT
#Build the package
- rpmbuild -bb --root ${TmpDrvFilesDir} --target ${ARCH} ${TmpPkgSpec} > ${TmpPkgBuildOut} 2>&1
+ rpmbuild -bb --buildroot ${TmpDrvFilesDir} --target ${ARCH} ${TmpPkgSpec} > ${TmpPkgBuildOut} 2>&1
#Retrieve the absolute path to the built package
if $? -eq 0 ]; then
great catch, NicoK. i read thru your explaination and did the modification manually to build the 9.11 rpm.
i hope you communicate the error to ATI feedback so the script can be corrected for the 9.12 release.
for me, the last two releases of the proprietary driver have been the best ever in performance for my 3850HD card. shame that a scripting error keeps that away from widespread use.
Just to clarify: you are using the package from 9.10 or 9.11 and are in the directory of the extracted files from that package?
(I tested this for 64bit, too - in fact, I did only test my script for that )
I must be missing something here…
I have the “fglrx-install.11” directory, but what do I do now?
When I try running ati-installer.sh, I get
Unrecognized parameter ‘’ to ati-installer.sh
This script supports the following arguments:
–help : print help messages
–listpkg : print out a list of generatable packages
–buildpkg [package] --dryrun] : if generatable, the package will be created
–buildandinstallpkg [package] --dryrun] : if generatable, the package will be creadted and installed
–install
I have tried it again with --install, but I get the same message.
As you can see, I don’t really know what I’m doing:shame:
Can anyone help?
I have just had a look at the text from the last step
It looks like I’m having problems with it
sarge@linux-sarge:~/Ati installer/fglrx-install.11> diff -U 3 -H -d -r -N – fglrx-install.11.orig/packages/SuSE/ati-packager.sh fglrx-install.11.new/packages/SuSE/ati-packager.sh
diff: fglrx-install.11.orig/packages/SuSE/ati-packager.sh: No such file or directory
diff: fglrx-install.11.new/packages/SuSE/ati-packager.sh: No such file or directory
sarge@linux-sarge:~/Ati installer/fglrx-install.11> — fglrx-install.11.orig/packages/SuSE/ati-packager.sh2009-11-12 07:07:59.000000000 +0100
If ‘—’ is not a typo you can use command-not-found to lookup the package that contains it, like this:
cnf —
sarge@linux-sarge:~/Ati installer/fglrx-install.11> +++ fglrx-install.11.new/packages/SuSE/ati-packager.sh2009-11-18 09:46:35.275689274 +0100
If ‘+++’ is not a typo you can use command-not-found to lookup the package that contains it, like this:
cnf +++
sarge@linux-sarge:~/Ati installer/fglrx-install.11> @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@
If ‘@@’ is not a typo you can use command-not-found to lookup the package that contains it, like this:
cnf @@
sarge@linux-sarge:~/Ati installer/fglrx-install.11> END_SED_SCRIPT
If ‘END_SED_SCRIPT’ is not a typo you can use command-not-found to lookup the package that contains it, like this:
cnf END_SED_SCRIPT
sarge@linux-sarge:~/Ati installer/fglrx-install.11>
sarge@linux-sarge:~/Ati installer/fglrx-install.11> #Build the package
sarge@linux-sarge:~/Ati installer/fglrx-install.11> - rpmbuild -bb --root ${TmpDrvFilesDir} --target ${ARCH} ${TmpPkgSpec} > ${TmpPkgBuildOut} 2>&1
bash: ${TmpPkgBuildOut}: ambiguous redirect
sarge@linux-sarge:~/Ati installer/fglrx-install.11> + rpmbuild -bb --buildroot ${TmpDrvFilesDir} --target ${ARCH} ${TmpPkgSpec} > ${TmpPkgBuildOut} 2>&1
bash: ${TmpPkgBuildOut}: ambiguous redirect
sarge@linux-sarge:~/Ati installer/fglrx-install.11>
sarge@linux-sarge:~/Ati installer/fglrx-install.11> #Retrieve the absolute path to the built package
sarge@linux-sarge:~/Ati installer/fglrx-install.11> if $? -eq 0 ]; then
“/home/sarge/Ati installer/fglrx-install.11 /home/sarge/Ati installer
./catalyst_911-suse112.sh: line 7: patch: command not found
Requested package is not supported”
patching file packages/SuSE/ati-packager.sh
patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line
Hunk #1 succeeded at 91 with fuzz 1.
Requested package is not supported.
Okay- I think I’m nearly finished. I’ve followed your instructions and generated the following RPM:
fglrx64_7_4_0_SUSE112-8.671-1.x86_64.rpm
I’ve installed the RPM…but what now? When I enter,
“/usr/bin/aticonfig --initial”
I get,
“/usr/bin/aticonfig: No supported adapters detected”, and when I go to the ATI Catalyst Control Center, I get a “No ATI graphics driver is installed, or the ATI driver is not functioning properly”
Ive tried your methods but it always says its looking for fglrx-install.11.diff
I have no clue how the scripting or anything goes, im lost in the sauce here.
I just had these drivers running on this machine, with OpenSuse 11.2 (the release… not a beta or anything) I ended up reformating and reinstalling beacuse I couldnt get my sound to work for the life of me, and I had decided I had broken it beyond repair.
It appears that a beta (RC2) WinXP version of Catalyst 9.12 has been released according to other forums. Hopefully the linux version that addresses this is not far behind.
I don’t know if this is part of my problem. I tried installing “the hard way”. When I type
sh ati*.run --listpkg
to list the distros that the driver can be built for, there is no mention of Suse. All I get listed are Debian, Fedora, Mandiva and Ubuntu.
Any ideas anyone?
)