On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Kenneth R Westerback <kwesterb...@rogers.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:01:25AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote: >> Then I was right regarding how well known the bugs are. ??As you wrote, >> there are even known workarounds. > > There are steps to diagnose YOUR problem and things to try that work for OTHER > PEOPLE. Who knows what your problems are until you tell us. Even if it is > the identical problem, your problem report could have that single new bit > of information that reveals all. > >> >> That I did not want to make double bug reports for something already >> reported should be understandable.?? >> > > Nope. > >> Also, somebody new to openbsd will not search the mail archives for >> workarounds. They expect things to work out of box. Should not the >> workarounds be enabled by default then??? > > Anybody new to OpenBSD will either not report bugs in which case we don't > know about them or their problems, or be told in the gentle OpenBSD way to > RTFML.
Since you bring it up... /or/ when a problem gets reported, even with great detail, it goes ignored. it's a crapshoot. at least be honest about the reality of things. --patrick > .... Ken > >> >> I would not consider myself to be whiny in this case as I long time ago >> noticed the reports and been patiently been waiting without whining hoping >> the problem would get a solution. Also it is not for own benefit i am >> complaining. I'm managing well (and I do not even run stable at home).?? >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Landry Breuil <lan...@rhaalovely.net> >> Date: 22/07/2013 08:49 (GMT+02:00) >> To: ports@openbsd.org >> Subject: Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED >> >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 07:56:31AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote: >> > I have several times seen reports about FF crashing. It might have >> > been here or then on #openbsd (I am not sure where). I thought this >> > is something everybody knows. I made a misjudgement because I did >> > not want to send a bug-report for something I thought everybody knew >> > already. >> > >> > What I sent to the list today was not a bug report either, I was >> > more raising the concern that the maintainer might need more time to >> > get it stable even though the tree is in lock and no big changes >> > should be allowed. >> > >> > This problem might be related to drivers also. My laptop at home is >> > using i915, which has seen quite a bit of development during the >> > latest cycle. I am using amd64 snapshots. The pictures often get >> > horizontal stripes. HTML5 videos often crashes it completely, so >> > also a bit more intensive java scripts. >> > >> > I can manage with Chromium, as it is not crashing. The problem is >> > not that big deal for me (although it is annoying). I am more >> > concerned about the reputation my favorite OS gets if FF gets >> > released in this shape. >> > >> > I am not a good C programmer (my code can be dangerous) and I am >> > unable of debugging C, but I am willing to do by instruction what >> > anyone wants me to do in order to help in this case. >> >> You just need to use common sense. >> >> - try with a fresh empty profile >> - try to reset your regular profile (see about:support) >> - collect backtraces of crashes, open bugs upstream & cc me >> - gfx issues with pictures are known and have been discussed here, try >> ?? the various workarounds devised in the archives. (about:config >> gfx.xrender.enabled, layers.acceleration.enabled, >> MOZ_DISABLE_IMAGE_OPTIMIZE=1 in the env... see >> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=136560946723949&w=2) >> >> Of course, i'm using firefox all the time on all my computers, and i >> dont see such OMGSOUNSTABLE behaviour. It crashes with OOM sometimes with >> heavy javascript, gobbles all cpu when viewing huge images, but besides >> that it's totally usable. >> >> > >>I have been following snapshots the whole time and this problems in FF >> > >>has been since the spring. >> >> Yeah, great timing to come whining... nothing will happen for 5.4. >> >> Landry >> >
