<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Hello Manuel,<br><br></div>I did test against my card I have a Radeon R9 290 and the packages I installed were fglrx-x11-drv-14.9-1.el7.elrepo.x86_64, fglrx-x11-drv-32bit-14.9-1.el7.elrepo.x86_64, and kmod-fglrx-14.9-1.el7.elrepo.x86_64 and ran a few different programs for testing, StarCCM+, tested some WebGL demos. I can confirm against KDE and Gnome environments things are sane. I've rebooted serveral different times and can jump around virtual consoles. I also have tested against an older Radeon HD 6950 card I had available. I should be able to test against some campus machines that are running FireGL cards. However I did notice that it seems to be using the legacy format for atieventsd, but from what I understand this is fine since systemctl will deal with those accordingly. Although I suspect that init script should be converted at some point. <br><br></div>At least for me it seems stable on my end.<br><br></div>Roy Williams (<a href="mailto:rwilli95@uncc.edu">rwilli95@uncc.edu</a>)<br><div><div><br><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Manuel Wolfshant <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro" target="_blank">wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 10/28/2015 02:58 PM, <a href="mailto:dominic@dcrdev.com" target="_blank">dominic@dcrdev.com</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
As I mentioned I'd be willing to test as well, if needs be I can give you remote access to a machine as well.<br>
<br>
Probably a naive question but since fglrx 15.9 has RHEL 7.1 support out of the box, shouldn't it be compatible with systemd?<br>
</blockquote></span>
I had no opportunity to test any version on a CentOS 7 since November or Dec 2014. What I DID notice when I created the packages for 15.7 was that ALL the rpm packages that could be downloaded from ATI were identical, independent of the major OS release version:<br>
[wolfy@wolfy elrepo]$ rpmdev-diff fglrx64_p_i_c-15.20.1046-1.x86_64_rhel6_64a.rpm fglrx64_p_i_c-15.20.1046-1.x86_64_rhel7_64a.rpm<br>
[wolfy@wolfy elrepo]$ ll<br>
total 290540<br>
-rw-rw-r--. 1 wolfy wolfy 148591223 Jul 27 09:59 fglrx64_p_i_c-15.20.1046-1.x86_64_rhel6_64a.rpm<br>
-rw-rw-r--. 1 wolfy wolfy 148591213 Jul 27 09:59 fglrx64_p_i_c-15.20.1046-1.x86_64_rhel7_64a.rpm<br>
<br>
And, with no surprise, the ouput of rpm -qlp on the two packages is also identical:<br>
-rw-rw-r--. 1 wolfy wolfy 7221 Jul 27 10:06 rhel6.txt<br>
-rw-rw-r--. 1 wolfy wolfy 7221 Jul 27 10:06 rhel7.txt<br>
<br>
As far as I can see the only difference is the build time. But, as I said, I had no chance to test on a CentOS 7 and verify their behavior. I'll try to take a peek one of the next days ( or better said, nights :) my boss just came with new ideas so I am really swamped at work).<span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Or is there something specific that has to happens with the kmod drivers, that differ from the AMD installer?<br>
<br>
</blockquote></span>
I will not bet my beer on this but I am pretty sure that the AMD packages do not take advantage of the weak-updates mechanism.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
Manuel<br>
</font></span><br>
<br>
PS: thank you for the offer.<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
elrepo mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:elrepo@lists.elrepo.org" target="_blank">elrepo@lists.elrepo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>