Bug#175102: ati driver and two ati cards...
tag 175102 + moreinfo retitle 175102 xserver-xfree86: [ati] SEGV on startup thanks On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 11:05:05PM +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > However, X cannor start because of two reasons: > > 1. 'Load "i2c"' is missing after configuration through 'dpkg-reconfigure > xserver-xfree86', but some symbol of libi2c.a is needed by the radeon > driver. That's not necessarily fatal, as I understand it. > 2. The xserver segfaults right at start. Here's the gdb backtrace: Thanks. I also need the server's log file as described in XF86Config(7). -- G. Branden Robinson|Fair use is irrelevant and Debian GNU/Linux |improper. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Asst. U.S. Attorney Scott http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |Frewing, explaining the DMCA msg05173/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Processed: Re: Bug#175102: ati driver and two ati cards...
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tag 175102 + moreinfo Bug#175102: ati driver and two ati cards... There were no tags set. Tags added: moreinfo > retitle 175102 xserver-xfree86: [ati] SEGV on startup Bug#175102: ati driver and two ati cards... Changed Bug title. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#175102: ati driver and two ati cards...
Package:xserver-xfree86 Version:4.2.1-4 Architecture: i386 Distribution: unstable/sid Hi! I've just installled X 4.2.x on my dual athlon. THis machine has got two video cards: 00:0e.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Rage XL (rev 27) (prog-if 00 [VGA]) Flags: stepping, medium devsel Memory at e900 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [disabled] [size=16M] I/O ports at 2800 [disabled] [size=256] Memory at e800a000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [disabled] [size=4K] Expansion ROM at [disabled] [size=128K] Capabilities: [5c] Power Management version 2 01:05.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon VE QY (prog-if 00 [VGA]) Subsystem: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon 7000/Radeon VE Flags: stepping, fast Back2Back, 66Mhz, medium devsel, IRQ 17 Memory at f000 (32-bit, prefetchable) [size=128M] I/O ports at 3000 [size=256] Memory at ea00 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=64K] Expansion ROM at [disabled] [size=128K] Capabilities: [58] AGP version 2.0 Capabilities: [50] Power Management version 2 However, X cannor start because of two reasons: 1. 'Load "i2c"' is missing after configuration through 'dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86', but some symbol of libi2c.a is needed by the radeon driver. 2. The xserver segfaults right at start. Here's the gdb backtrace: Build Operating System: Linux 2.4.18 i686 [ELF] Module Loader present Markers: (--) probed, (**) from config file, (==) default setting, (++) from command line, (!!) notice, (II) informational, (WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown. (==) Log file: "/var/log/XFree86.0.log", Time: Thu Jan 2 22:50:13 2003 (==) Using config file: "/etc/X11/XF86Config-4" (WW) RADEON: No matching Device section for instance (BusID PCI:0:14:0) found (no debugging symbols found)... Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x0808ec57 in xf86nameCompare () (gdb) bt #0 0x0808ec57 in xf86nameCompare () #1 0x08089cdc in xf86findOption () #2 0x08089d0c in xf86findOptionValue () #3 0x08086d93 in xf86ShowUnusedOptions () #4 0x080871fb in xf86ProcessOptions () #5 0x084cc650 in ?? () #6 0x0848fab2 in ?? () #7 0x0854d19a in ?? () #8 0x0854db6b in ?? () #9 0x0806cafb in InitOutput () #10 0x080bed96 in main () #11 0x4005e9f1 in __libc_start_main () from /lib/libc.so.6 (gdb) Here's my /etc/X11/XF86Config-4: ### BEGIN DEBCONF SECTION # XF86Config-4 (XFree86 server configuration file) generated by dexconf, the # Debian X Configuration tool, using values from the debconf database. # # Edit this file with caution, and see the XF86Config-4 manual page. # (Type "man XF86Config-4" at the shell prompt.) # # If you want your changes to this file preserved by dexconf, only make changes # before the "### BEGIN DEBCONF SECTION" line above, and/or after the # "### END DEBCONF SECTION" line below. # # To change things within the debconf section, run the command: # dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86 # as root. Also see "How do I add custom sections to a dexconf-generated # XF86Config or XF86Config-4 file?" in /usr/share/doc/xfree86-common/FAQ.gz. Section "Files" FontPath"unix/:7100"# local font server # if the local font server has problems, we can fall back on these FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/misc" FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/cyrillic" FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi/:unscaled" FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi/:unscaled" FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/Type1" FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/Speedo" FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi" FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi" EndSection Section "Module" Load"GLcore" Load"bitmap" Load"dbe" Load"ddc" Load"dri" Load"i2c" Load"extmod" Load"freetype" Load"glx" Load"int10" Load"record" Load"speedo" Load"type1" Load"vbe" EndSection Section "InputDevice" Identifier "Generic Keyboard" Driver "keyboard" Option "CoreKeyboard" Option "XkbRules" "xfree86" Option "XkbModel" "pc104" Option "XkbLayout" "de" Option "XkbVariant""nodeadkeys" EndSection Section "InputDevice" Identifier "Configured Mouse" Driver "mouse" Option "CorePointer" Option "Device""/dev/psaux" Option "Protocol" "PS/2" Option "Emulate3Buttons" "true" Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5" EndSection Section "InputDevice" Identifier "Generic Mouse" Driver
Bug#175102: ati driver and two ati cards...
Package:xserver-xfree86 Version:4.2.1-4 Architecture: i386 Distribution: unstable/sid Hi! I've just installled X 4.2.x on my dual athlon. THis machine has got two video cards: 00:0e.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Rage XL (rev 27) (prog-if 00 [VGA]) Flags: stepping, medium devsel Memory at e900 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [disabled] [size=16M] I/O ports at 2800 [disabled] [size=256] Memory at e800a000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [disabled] [size=4K] Expansion ROM at [disabled] [size=128K] Capabilities: [5c] Power Management version 2 01:05.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon VE QY (prog-if 00 [VGA]) Subsystem: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon 7000/Radeon VE Flags: stepping, fast Back2Back, 66Mhz, medium devsel, IRQ 17 Memory at f000 (32-bit, prefetchable) [size=128M] I/O ports at 3000 [size=256] Memory at ea00 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=64K] Expansion ROM at [disabled] [size=128K] Capabilities: [58] AGP version 2.0 Capabilities: [50] Power Management version 2 However, X cannor start because of two reasons: 1. 'Load "i2c"' is missing after configuration through 'dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86', but some symbol of libi2c.a is needed by the radeon driver. 2. The xserver segfaults right at start. Here's the gdb backtrace: Build Operating System: Linux 2.4.18 i686 [ELF] Module Loader present Markers: (--) probed, (**) from config file, (==) default setting, (++) from command line, (!!) notice, (II) informational, (WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown. (==) Log file: "/var/log/XFree86.0.log", Time: Thu Jan 2 22:50:13 2003 (==) Using config file: "/etc/X11/XF86Config-4" (WW) RADEON: No matching Device section for instance (BusID PCI:0:14:0) found (no debugging symbols found)... Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x0808ec57 in xf86nameCompare () (gdb) bt #0 0x0808ec57 in xf86nameCompare () #1 0x08089cdc in xf86findOption () #2 0x08089d0c in xf86findOptionValue () #3 0x08086d93 in xf86ShowUnusedOptions () #4 0x080871fb in xf86ProcessOptions () #5 0x084cc650 in ?? () #6 0x0848fab2 in ?? () #7 0x0854d19a in ?? () #8 0x0854db6b in ?? () #9 0x0806cafb in InitOutput () #10 0x080bed96 in main () #11 0x4005e9f1 in __libc_start_main () from /lib/libc.so.6 (gdb) Here's my /etc/X11/XF86Config-4: ### BEGIN DEBCONF SECTION # XF86Config-4 (XFree86 server configuration file) generated by dexconf, the # Debian X Configuration tool, using values from the debconf database. # # Edit this file with caution, and see the XF86Config-4 manual page. # (Type "man XF86Config-4" at the shell prompt.) # # If you want your changes to this file preserved by dexconf, only make changes # before the "### BEGIN DEBCONF SECTION" line above, and/or after the # "### END DEBCONF SECTION" line below. # # To change things within the debconf section, run the command: # dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86 # as root. Also see "How do I add custom sections to a dexconf-generated # XF86Config or XF86Config-4 file?" in /usr/share/doc/xfree86-common/FAQ.gz. Section "Files" FontPath"unix/:7100"# local font server # if the local font server has problems, we can fall back on these FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/misc" FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/cyrillic" FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi/:unscaled" FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi/:unscaled" FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/Type1" FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/Speedo" FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi" FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi" EndSection Section "Module" Load"GLcore" Load"bitmap" Load"dbe" Load"ddc" Load"dri" Load"i2c" Load"extmod" Load"freetype" Load"glx" Load"int10" Load"record" Load"speedo" Load"type1" Load"vbe" EndSection Section "InputDevice" Identifier "Generic Keyboard" Driver "keyboard" Option "CoreKeyboard" Option "XkbRules" "xfree86" Option "XkbModel" "pc104" Option "XkbLayout" "de" Option "XkbVariant""nodeadkeys" EndSection Section "InputDevice" Identifier "Configured Mouse" Driver "mouse" Option "CorePointer" Option "Device""/dev/psaux" Option "Protocol" "PS/2" Option "Emulate3Buttons" "true" Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5" EndSection Section "InputDevice" Identifier "Generic Mouse" Driver
Bug#175074: xlibmesa3: libraries not compiled with -fPIC
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 07:43:49PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > One or more shared libraries in this package are buggy. > By policy, all shared libraries MUST be compiled with -fPIC. > > The broken libraries are: > > /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1 Please also consider http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2002/debian-x-200212/msg00022.html with regard to handling/solving this problem. Simon
Bug#175074: xlibmesa3: libraries not compiled with -fPIC
Package: xlibmesa3 Version: 4.2.1-4 Severity: important [This is a standard text.] One or more shared libraries in this package are buggy. By policy, all shared libraries MUST be compiled with -fPIC. The broken libraries are: /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1
Bug#175074: xlibmesa3: libraries not compiled with -fPIC
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 07:43:49PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > One or more shared libraries in this package are buggy. > By policy, all shared libraries MUST be compiled with -fPIC. > > The broken libraries are: > > /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1 Please also consider http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2002/debian-x-200212/msg00022.html with regard to handling/solving this problem. Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#175074: xlibmesa3: libraries not compiled with -fPIC
Package: xlibmesa3 Version: 4.2.1-4 Severity: important [This is a standard text.] One or more shared libraries in this package are buggy. By policy, all shared libraries MUST be compiled with -fPIC. The broken libraries are: /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#172962: IPv6 support (more info)
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 08:56:09AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:59:25PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > > > > I'm not trying to sound hostile about it, it's just that it would be a > > very rude thing to do to our users. > > ?? I did never read your messages as hostile. Yuo have been extremely > gently, polite and you made as well a perfect point that i have > underestimate. > > > > > > Im working on pushing them to X.org and hopefully to get atleast an answer > > > back. If there will be no answer XFree86 will be the next step, and I > > > perfectly agree with you about a good deep review. > > > > IMO you should go XFree86 first. They are the leading implementation of > > the X Window System and have a reputation for being more responsive. > > They're certainly more open. > > Thanks for the info. I tought it was the other way around X.org -> Xfree86 > from one of the previous message, but it will cost me nothing to contact > them as well. Please note that XFree86 has feature frozen the code base for the 4.3.0 release, so i suppose your code would be accepted only after 4.3.0 is released, i think. People may well test it earlier though. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Debian's XFree86 4.2 and SiS vs. DRI
Michel Dänzer wrote: Is there common code inside sis_dri.so? Yes, the common code is part of all the code. :) OK. (I don't consider my question that stupid :) as common code could reside in other - common - modules as well) I assume as regards 4.3, you mean the inclusion of Mesa4, right? Well, no one of the DRI folks seems to care about the SiS driver, so this is hopeless anyway. It's not the job of the DRI folks to maintain a driver for hardware they don't have. That's exactly what I have been doing for a year now. Implementing support for hardware I don't have (SiS 315, 550, 650, 740, etc) I don't know of any DRI developers having any SiS hardware, and I think this is even harder to do for 3D than it is for 2D. No offence, it probably is. I didn't actually exspect the DRI folks to develope a new driver for yet unsupported chipsets. I just think that porting the existing SiS driver (with support for the 300 series) to Mesa4 API can't be impossible, even without the hardware. And dropping an API without some sort of compatibility layer is not an attitude I especially appreciate. BTW: In the meantime, I have received a number of success reports for SiS-DRI with 4.2.1. These people even used a sis_dri.so binary which was compiled with Debian's source... 8:O Thomas -- Thomas Winischhofer Vienna/Austria mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.winischhofer.net/
Bug#172962: IPv6 support (more info)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:59:25PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > > I'm not trying to sound hostile about it, it's just that it would be a > very rude thing to do to our users. ?? I did never read your messages as hostile. Yuo have been extremely gently, polite and you made as well a perfect point that i have underestimate. > > > Im working on pushing them to X.org and hopefully to get atleast an answer > > back. If there will be no answer XFree86 will be the next step, and I > > perfectly agree with you about a good deep review. > > IMO you should go XFree86 first. They are the leading implementation of > the X Window System and have a reputation for being more responsive. > They're certainly more open. Thanks for the info. I tought it was the other way around X.org -> Xfree86 from one of the previous message, but it will cost me nothing to contact them as well. > > > I leave up to you if you wish to close this bug or not. I do not mind > > either way and for sure i'm not the one going to play tennis with BTS ;) > > I'm not going to close it right now. I'm tagging it "moreinfo". The > info I need is: > > * Do these patches change the X protocol? > > If so, I will tag the bug "wontfix, upstream" and close it. > > If not, I might be willing to put then in a Debian package as long as I > understand the impact. Well that is the same idea I got also from other people. If the implementation will be the same, Debian will be able to lead the testing phase, but of course let's take a look to what will come out from Xfree86 first. > Thanks a lot for working on this. > It's a pleasure trust me. Fabio -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+E/CrhCzbekR3nhgRAlEuAKCDTiOs9gmhYR+4x7DYdf2F6SjyHwCgg/uZ LKGn49YxrMCvo5i8jqgRl/I= =WHRs -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#172962: IPv6 support (more info)
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 08:56:09AM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:59:25PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > > > > I'm not trying to sound hostile about it, it's just that it would be a > > very rude thing to do to our users. > > ?? I did never read your messages as hostile. Yuo have been extremely > gently, polite and you made as well a perfect point that i have > underestimate. > > > > > > Im working on pushing them to X.org and hopefully to get atleast an answer > > > back. If there will be no answer XFree86 will be the next step, and I > > > perfectly agree with you about a good deep review. > > > > IMO you should go XFree86 first. They are the leading implementation of > > the X Window System and have a reputation for being more responsive. > > They're certainly more open. > > Thanks for the info. I tought it was the other way around X.org -> Xfree86 > from one of the previous message, but it will cost me nothing to contact > them as well. Please note that XFree86 has feature frozen the code base for the 4.3.0 release, so i suppose your code would be accepted only after 4.3.0 is released, i think. People may well test it earlier though. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian's XFree86 4.2 and SiS vs. DRI
Michel Dänzer wrote: Is there common code inside sis_dri.so? Yes, the common code is part of all the code. :) OK. (I don't consider my question that stupid :) as common code could reside in other - common - modules as well) I assume as regards 4.3, you mean the inclusion of Mesa4, right? Well, no one of the DRI folks seems to care about the SiS driver, so this is hopeless anyway. It's not the job of the DRI folks to maintain a driver for hardware they don't have. That's exactly what I have been doing for a year now. Implementing support for hardware I don't have (SiS 315, 550, 650, 740, etc) I don't know of any DRI developers having any SiS hardware, and I think this is even harder to do for 3D than it is for 2D. No offence, it probably is. I didn't actually exspect the DRI folks to develope a new driver for yet unsupported chipsets. I just think that porting the existing SiS driver (with support for the 300 series) to Mesa4 API can't be impossible, even without the hardware. And dropping an API without some sort of compatibility layer is not an attitude I especially appreciate. BTW: In the meantime, I have received a number of success reports for SiS-DRI with 4.2.1. These people even used a sis_dri.so binary which was compiled with Debian's source... 8:O Thomas -- Thomas Winischhofer Vienna/Austria mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.winischhofer.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#170510: Bug#170508: Bug#170510: X server build problem fix
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ISHIKAWA Mutsumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2) Defined `BuildServersOnly' will build only X servers. >>`Servers' mean `XFree86 server, Xnest server, X virtual fareme >>buffer server, and Xprint server'. >> >> The Xnest server requires libX11, so defined and only definied >>`BuildServersOnly'. So we should build libX11 for it. >> >> We only need XFree86 (static linked with debug flag) server. >>Xnest, Xvfb and Xprt static linked servers are not needed. >> >> I think we can add `-DXnestServer=NO >>-DXVirtualFramebufferServer=NO -DXprtServer=NO' flags for >>SERVERDEBUG_IMAKE_DEFINES in debian/rules to solve this. One more small patch is needed. xc/lib/X11/Imakefile miss depend target if defined `BuildServersOnly' as YES and both `BuildXnestServer' and `BuildGLXLibrary' defined as NO. --- xc/lib/X11/Imakefile.orig 2003-01-02 14:08:53.0 +0900 +++ xc/lib/X11/Imakefile2003-01-02 14:09:04.0 +0900 @@ -1045,5 +1045,7 @@ #else all:: +depend:: + BuildIncludes($(HEADERS),IncSubdir,..) #endif -- ISHIKAWA Mutsumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bug#172962: IPv6 support (more info)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:59:25PM +0100, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > > I'm not trying to sound hostile about it, it's just that it would be a > very rude thing to do to our users. ?? I did never read your messages as hostile. Yuo have been extremely gently, polite and you made as well a perfect point that i have underestimate. > > > Im working on pushing them to X.org and hopefully to get atleast an answer > > back. If there will be no answer XFree86 will be the next step, and I > > perfectly agree with you about a good deep review. > > IMO you should go XFree86 first. They are the leading implementation of > the X Window System and have a reputation for being more responsive. > They're certainly more open. Thanks for the info. I tought it was the other way around X.org -> Xfree86 from one of the previous message, but it will cost me nothing to contact them as well. > > > I leave up to you if you wish to close this bug or not. I do not mind > > either way and for sure i'm not the one going to play tennis with BTS ;) > > I'm not going to close it right now. I'm tagging it "moreinfo". The > info I need is: > > * Do these patches change the X protocol? > > If so, I will tag the bug "wontfix, upstream" and close it. > > If not, I might be willing to put then in a Debian package as long as I > understand the impact. Well that is the same idea I got also from other people. If the implementation will be the same, Debian will be able to lead the testing phase, but of course let's take a look to what will come out from Xfree86 first. > Thanks a lot for working on this. > It's a pleasure trust me. Fabio -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+E/CrhCzbekR3nhgRAlEuAKCDTiOs9gmhYR+4x7DYdf2F6SjyHwCgg/uZ LKGn49YxrMCvo5i8jqgRl/I= =WHRs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
