nvidia-open double fix with nvidia-open-dkms

[RageGen]

Fixing package duplication when installing nvidia-open driver, which is unnecessary because one of the packages is already present. In this case, nvidia-open and nvidia-open-dkms duplicate each other, which can lead to misunderstandings among inexperienced users when installing through a script and using a kernel other than generic linux.

[svartkanin]

This change will break the code as the removed package is still being assigned https://github.com/archlinux/archinstall/pull/2517/files#diff-d39c5771ecacdcd8a8216c41e300b2c0df140c7a871e99f2b29994a85b78cc86L120

According to https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/NVIDIA

Alternatively for the Turing (NV160/TUXXX) series or newer the nvidia-open package may be installed for open source kernel modules on the linux kernel (On other kernels nvidia-open-dkms must be used).

So this may require some more detailed handling of which one to install on Turing series

[RageGen]

@svartkanin I didn’t understand why it violates anything, if in fact, by analogy, everything is done in the same way as with the nvidia package, which is proprietary. After all, only nvidia-dkms is used there, regardless of the kernel.

[RageGen]

@svartkanin I corrected the file, if you meant it. You still haven't justified why in the case of nvidia-open does not work in the same way as in the case of a regular nvidia package. You refer to an article on the wiki, but why? If even when using the script, the pacman itself discards nvidia-open and leaves only its dkms weight.

[RageGen]

@offensive-vk Thank you for your attention to my request!

[Torxed]

So the understanding is:

• If linux kernel is chosen, nvidia-open can be used for supported cards but nvidia-open-dkms can also be used - but adds unnecessary overhead during updates
• If linux-<variation> kernel is chosen, nvidia-open-dkms must be used

So by removing nvidia-open we would have to rely on nvidia-open-dkms, is this assumption not correct? if it is, then it will add delays and complexity during updates where nvidia-open would have been a better fit?

[RageGen]

@Torxed So regardless of the kernel, both packages are installed and in the end only dkms remains, I checked. Then what’s the point? And well, even if as you say, then with the usual nvidia driver, it would be worth doing exactly the same.If your colleague @offensive-vk appreciated this decision, doesn’t that mean it makes sense?

[offensive-vk]

@RageGen, Look briefly:

• Using nvidia-open with the standard Linux kernel is generally faster and simpler for updates.
• Using nvidia-open-dkms is necessary for kernel variations but introduces additional overhead during updates..
• If we remove nvidia-open, you will have to use nvidia-open-dkms, which will add delays and complexity during updates..

Your assumption is mostly correct , but relying solely on nvidia-open-dkms can complicate and slow down the update process compared to using nvidia-open with the standard kernel.

---

Lets not hurry on changing this, as it might impact on production scale. so please , Let @Torxed do his work and relax 🤗.
Have a nice day.

[RageGen]

Okay, thank you very much, sorry. I thought I’d help. @offensive-vk