Re: New install - no sound
Kernels 2.6.12 enable something called dmix by default if your soundcard does not support multiple channels. This would allow rhythmbox and xmms to play sounds at the same time without esd/alsa/your sound server. This is a very cool feature that I sorely missed for a long time. Russ Cook wrote: Oops. I reran alsaconf. That killed a process that was running (I don't know what it was). Afterwards, both XMMS and Rythmbox are functional now. Thank you both for your helpful suggestions. Now that sound is working, I can turn to other problems - like whether to install a 32-bit chroot for programs like Mplayer, Mozilla with Java support, etc. Thanks again. I really appreciate your help. Regards, Russ Russ Cook wrote: Len, In /proc/asound I have a symlink CK804 which links to a directory card0. In card0 I have a file named intel8x0 and a directory named codec97#0. There also other files and directories. Connecting to other audio jacks does not appear to help. Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 07:01:35PM -0600, Russ Cook wrote: I believe I have. As a user, I am a member of the audio group. I can run alsamixer as normal user. Still no sound. I visited this web site for hints - http://xtronics.com/reference/Debian-sound.html and looked at the list of packages it recommended installing. I noticed that I can't install alsa-modules because it isn't available. I am running testing - does that have any bearing on my problem? You only need alsa-modules for 2.4 kernels. 2.6 kernels have alsa drivers already included. Do you have your card listed in /proc/asound/cards? What sound chip is it? If it is an i8x0 ac97 chip, then try plugging the speakers into the mic jack or other jacks and see if it helps, or turn up the headphone volume. If any of that works, you need to go find out which ac97_quirk option you have to pass to the driver for your hardware. Len Sorensen -- Matthew A. Nicholson Digium -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New install - no sound
Use gstreamer-properties to make gstreamer use alsa. Russ Cook wrote: Partial success. After installing the programs I could find from the referenced list, XMMS now works. Rythmbox 0.8.8 still fails with the error message 'Could not create audio output element; check your setting'. Russ Cook wrote: I believe I have. As a user, I am a member of the audio group. I can run alsamixer as normal user. Still no sound. I visited this web site for hints - http://xtronics.com/reference/Debian-sound.html and looked at the list of packages it recommended installing. I noticed that I can't install alsa-modules because it isn't available. I am running testing - does that have any bearing on my problem? Matthew A. Nicholson wrote: You didn't follow my directions... First make sure you are part of the audio group, you generally should just "be root". adduser mynamehere audio Then run alsamixer as that user and make sure the sound is at a resonable level. If it works as root then it should work as user if you have the right permissions. You should not need to manually run esd. Russ Cook wrote: Udev was already installed - I confirmed with Aptitude. Executing the command 'modprobe snd_intel8x0' made no difference. When I click on volume control under the sound and Video menu item of Gnome, I get the error message "No volume control elements and/or devices found." When I try to play a file using Rythmbox 0.8.8, I get the message "Could not create audio output element; check your settings".When I clicked on the "volume monitor" under the Sound and Video menu item of Gnome, I get the error message "Cannot connect to sound daemon. Please run 'esd' at a command prompt." From a terminal as root, I execute esd, and get a momentary tone sequence. I then tried again to play a file under Rythmbox, and get the same error message "Could not create audio output element; check your settings". This certainly appears to be a configuration issue, but I don't know what the problem is or how to fix it. As always, any help or pointers to references would be greatly appreciated. -- Matthew A. Nicholson Digium -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New install - no sound
You didn't follow my directions... First make sure you are part of the audio group, you generally should just "be root". adduser mynamehere audio Then run alsamixer as that user and make sure the sound is at a resonable level. If it works as root then it should work as user if you have the right permissions. You should not need to manually run esd. Russ Cook wrote: Udev was already installed - I confirmed with Aptitude. Executing the command 'modprobe snd_intel8x0' made no difference. When I click on volume control under the sound and Video menu item of Gnome, I get the error message "No volume control elements and/or devices found." When I try to play a file using Rythmbox 0.8.8, I get the message "Could not create audio output element; check your settings".When I clicked on the "volume monitor" under the Sound and Video menu item of Gnome, I get the error message "Cannot connect to sound daemon. Please run 'esd' at a command prompt." From a terminal as root, I execute esd, and get a momentary tone sequence. I then tried again to play a file under Rythmbox, and get the same error message "Could not create audio output element; check your settings". This certainly appears to be a configuration issue, but I don't know what the problem is or how to fix it. As always, any help or pointers to references would be greatly appreciated. -- Matthew A. Nicholson Matt-Land.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OpenOffice-2.0.
Chris Wakefield wrote: I guess I could have made myself a little more clear. I understand the 64 bit OO2 progress, thanks. I noticed that OO2 is not offered in any linux binary except those wrapped in rpm's I was thinking that OO2 would come with the same installer as 1.2 didI think it was a _bin_ ? Anyways, I tried converting the OO2 rpm's to debs, but ran into a few problems and was hoping there was a simpler way. You can build debs from the openoffice.org source in debian. There are instructions various places, but they will crash when you try to do certain things. OOo is not 64 bit clean. By-the-way, I still don't understand why one would need to set up a 32 bit chroot just to run OO when we have 32 bit emulation? You can't emulate an app if you don't have the libraries it depends on installed in a way it can find them (the purpose of ia32-libs and chroots). Multiarch will solve these problems in a clean and elagant way that will let you use your expensive new processor to its fullest, but multiarch might be a ways off (lots of red tape and stuff...). -- Matthew A. Nicholson Matt-Land.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New install - no sound
Install udev, modprobe snd_intel8x0, use alsamixer to adjust your volume, enjoy your sound. Simple. :) Russ Cook wrote: Thanks much for the reply. I did NOT have the alsa-utils installed. I thought I had, and that the system was configured. I have now installed alsa-utils, alsa-base, and alsa-oss, and run alsaconf. My modules and /dev do not match yours. You can tell by now that I am not expert at this. I will compile my own kernel once I get everything up and running, so I have a fall-back in case I incorrectly set some options for the custom kernel. Any further pointers would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Russ -- Matthew A. Nicholson Matt-Land.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open office
Adam Stiles wrote: On Tuesday 22 November 2005 08:09, Rob van Kraanen wrote: You could use a 32-bit OpenOffice.org in a 32-bit chroot, but that would be rather like buying a cat and teaching it to bark. Isn't the point of having a 64-bit processor, to run 64-bit applications on it? I got a 64-bit processor that can run both 64-bit and 32-bit applications. I want to do both, not just 64-bit (for things like OO.o and flash... eww...). Unfortunatelly progress with multiarch is slow. -- Matthew A. Nicholson Matt-Land.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open office
Greg Madden wrote: On Monday 21 November 2005 23:09, Rob van Kraanen wrote: To sum up, there won't be a 64 bit OOo.org any time soon. 32 bit chroots are beyond what a user can be expected to setup. The AMD64 cpu can run 32 & 64 bit apps at the same time, all is needed are the correct libraries installed for the 32 bit apps. This last point is what Ubuntu and others have used to run OpenOffice on 64 bit. Does Debian amd64 have such a plan for running OpenOffice ? Google multiarch. -- Matthew A. Nicholson Matt-Land.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open office
The ultimate solution too solve these problems is multiarch which is talking a long time (thanks to they way Debian works). Push that if you want to see this work seamlessly (think apt-get install openoffice.org:i386). Charles de Miramon wrote: Hamish Moffatt wrote: Does the Debian Amd64 developpers consider pushing this package in the official repository (and similar ones for important 32bit applications [Wine, Acrobat Reader])? Considering the number of times, the OpenOffice problem has been raised on this mailing list, it would certainly be useful for your users and nice to have it for etch. Cheers, Charles -- Matthew A. Nicholson Matt-Land.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OOorg2 again
OpenOffice.org2 (and openoffice.org1) are not 64bit clean. OpenOffice.org2 will build on 64 bit platforms but when you run it strange things and crashes will happen, this is why it is not in the archive. You could run it in a 32bit chroot environment, you could run koffice, or goffice, or you could wait for multiarch. Lars Schimmer wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi! Just again the question: does anyone know any progress on getting a debian amd64 version of OOorg2 ? I tried with building from source, but I just get E: Build-dependencies for openoffice.org could not be satisfied. which is very verbose. Cya Lars - -- - - TU Graz, Institut für ComputerGraphik & WissensVisualisierung Tel.: +43 316 873-5405 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP-Key-ID: 0xB87A0E03 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDgb6NVguzrLh6DgMRAunBAJ9BtaVaqEf1kSAnXbvrW9wc67uRsgCfdPdW WcUYBvvHq4Mzd73QpB9SG6M= =nP0A -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Matthew A. Nicholson Matt-Land.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: flash on mozilla
Junichi Uekawa wrote: Hi, If you find a page that libflash-mozplugin cannot display, please report the URL. That way we may be able to get a better GPL flash plugin rather than having to rely on 32-bit proprietary code. I'm doing fine with libflash-mozplugin, so your mileage may vary. You could also wait (years?) for multiarch support. Multiarch doesn't help here, since it will not allow you to load 32-bit plugin from 64-bit mozilla. Yes, I know, but multiarch would help with installing a 32-bit plugin and a 32-bit browser with out using a chroot. -- Matthew A. Nicholson Matt-Land.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: flash on mozilla
Junichi Uekawa wrote: Hi, Has anybody achieved flash on mozilla, firefox or epiphany ? I looked for flash-plugin on amd64 but had no success. I installed flash-player probing. Announces of flash-plugin needed disappeared but now I only get one-color-square in place of flash-spot. All suggestions welcomed. Thanks. If you find a page that libflash-mozplugin cannot display, please report the URL. That way we may be able to get a better GPL flash plugin rather than having to rely on 32-bit proprietary code. I'm doing fine with libflash-mozplugin, so your mileage may vary. You could also wait (years?) for multiarch support. -- Matthew A. Nicholson Matt-Land.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-amd64 or debian-pure64
As far as I can tell this is a relic from the days when the biarch option was on the table. Now both of these are purely 64 bit distros (an may be the same thing). Some time in the future multiarch will be merged in and then you will be able to mix and match your software as you feel necessary but for now it is purely 64 bit based. Stepan Kadlec wrote: hi, can somebody please tell me, what is the difference between debian-amd64 and debian-pure64 repository as found on amd64.debian.net and which one should I use? thanks steve -- Matthew A. Nicholson Matt-Land.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiarch
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: I posted a few patches to the BTS adding the multiarch dirs to the toolchain without breaking existing practices. Once those are added we can start patching packages to use those new dirs. I don't want to start and maintain a second amd64 archive (and extra patches) so I'm currently in a holding pattern. MfG Goswin Ok, thanks for the reply. I will go and bug them. :) -- Matthew A. Nicholson Digium -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Multiarch
Are there any new updates on multiarch or is it still just a purposal? I say we organize a team to get multiarch working and stop sitting on our hands. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: amd-64 vs Pure-64
Jonas Meurer wrote: > On 27/09/2005 Marc F. Clemente wrote: > >>>Where might I find the sources and patches from which you compiled >>>your version of OOo2? >> >>Patch: >>http://mclemente.net/~marc/ooo2-marc.diff >> >>My sources: >>deb-src http://mclemente.net/debian/ ./ >> >>The only changes I made were to the debian/rules file and to the >>vbarange.cxx and vbarange.hxx files. > > > hello, > > i just fetched ooo2 sources from experimental (1.9.125-1), and tried to > build them on amd64 with your patch. > unfortunately the build process breaks after an hour with the following > error: > > ---snip--- > [...] > make[2]: Making `all' in `data' > make[3]: Entering directory `/home/jonas/devel/openoffice.org2/openoffice.org2-1.9.125/ooo-build/build/src680-m125/icu/unxlngx4.pro/misc/build/icu/source/data' > /bin/sh ../mkinstalldirs ../data/out ../data/out/build ../test/testdata/out ../test/testdata/out/build > mkdir ../data/out > mkdir ../data/out/build > mkdir ../test/testdata/out > mkdir ../test/testdata/out/build > ICU_DATA=../data/out/build LD_LIBRARY_PATH=../common:../i18n:../tools/toolutil:../layout:../layoutex:../extra/ustdio:../tools/ctestfw:../data/out:../data:../stubdata/:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH ../tools/genpname/genpname -d ../data/out/build > Inconsistency detected by ld.so: dl-minimal.c: 137: realloc: Assertion `new == ptr' failed! > make[3]: *** [../data/out/build/icudt26l_pnames.icu] Error 127 > make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/jonas/devel/openoffice.org2/openoffice.org2-1.9.125/ooo-build/build/src680-m125/icu/unxlngx4.pro/misc/build/icu/source/data' > make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 2 > make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/jonas/devel/openoffice.org2/openoffice.org2-1.9.125/ooo-build/build/src680-m125/icu/unxlngx4.pro/misc/build/icu/source' > dmake: Error code 2, while making './unxlngx4.pro/misc/build/so_built_so_icu' > '---* tg_merge.mk *---' > > ERROR: Error 65280 occurred while making /home/jonas/devel/openoffice.org2/openoffice.org2-1.9.125/ooo-build/build/src680-m125/icu > make[1]: *** [stamp/build] Error 1 > make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/jonas/devel/openoffice.org2/openoffice.org2-1.9.125/ooo-build' > make: *** [debian/stampdir/build] Error 2 > ---snip--- > > just wanted to report that, maybe it's an already known issue. > > ... > jonas Sweetness. I have been able to successfully compile (and run, haven't done anything serious) openoffice.org2 on my pure amd64 system. The build to all day (maybe 6 hours) and required patching a header and source file and exporting LD_PRELOAD=/lib/libc.so.6 (which fixes the error encountered above). I also had to add amd64 to the debian/control file. I cannot comment on the stability of ooo2 on amd64 but from what I read it appears that it is still not 64 bit clean which in layman's terms means it is going to SEGFAULT/crash all over the place. I will keep you guys updated on my findings. (I feel like a gentoo ricer now...) -- Matthew A. Nicholson Matt-Land.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: amd-64 vs Pure-64
Inconsistency detected by ld.so: dl-minimal.c: 137: realloc: Assertion I was able to work around this bug by doing this before building: export LD_PRELOAD=/lib/libc.so.6 Still don't have a successful build (it's still building), but I was able to get past that point. -- Matthew A. Nicholson Matt-Land.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re : X.org enters in Sid
Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh) wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 13.07.2005 14:22:04, v0n0 a écrit : v0n0 ha scritto: > > mmmh, strange, it seems that not all packages are in unstable yet... [ ...] All are in teh i386 architecture. You will have to wait a bit for everything to enter amd64 mirrors (if there are not build problems) If you don't wanna wait you could apt-get source xorg-x11 && apt-get build-dep xorg-x11 the compile it yourself like I did. Then you can use apt-ftparchive packages . > Packages && apt-ftparchive release . > Release to generate a local repo then just add a file:///path/to/debs line in your apt sources list then apt-get install it like it was anything else. -- Matthew A. Nicholson Digium -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GCC 4.0 as default compiler
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Javier Kohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi, I see that gcc-4:4.0.0-1 became the default compiler on sid, do you think (or better yet, know by experience) if's safe to switch to it already on AMD64, or should I put it on hold for now? Greetings, As user of testing/unstable you are our guinny pig. You tell us. Things will certainly break. But that is what testing/unstable is for. MfG Goswin So... do I get one of those neat running wheel things? :) I am looking at my AMD64 processor right here and the rest of the parts of my new system should be here by the middle of next week. Hopefully I can be of some use, I do have some experience making debs, and I program in C, C++, and python. -- Matthew A. Nicholson Digium -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: asterisk pbx on debian-amd64
So yeah... Installing asterisk on amd64 should work fine. We have several opteron, emt64, and itanium2 systems here at Digium that are running asterisk. Not sure if any of them are running Debian. Although I have never actually done it myself, you should be able to just install zlib (apt-get install libz-dev) from a deb and then compile asterisk using that. -- Matthew A. Nicholson Digium -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question
David Wood wrote: On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: But you don't realy gain anything by multiarch for amd64. Only 3 things come to my mind: OpenOffice, Flash support and w32codecs + 32bit mplayer. And only OO is in Debian. Maybe add wine to that list? (Disclaimer, haven't tried it lately) I actually have a completely different question. I just re-read the multi-arch doc and two things jump out: first, it looks extremely non-controvertial, i.e. all parties should at least agree it's simple and right - there's nothing wrong with it; second, it looks there's no reason to wait to start. Am I a bonehead or is it just a matter of moving some directories and symlinks around in etch and then the super-gradual process (many many years if you want) of migrating things from using the legacy symlinks to the multiarch dirs... Why wait to get started? What would break? I have the same question. Is this being actively worked on right now? I am not a debian developer, but I do have some experience making packages, and I am a software developer. I will be purchasing an amd64 based system soon, and would not mind spending some time getting multi arch up and running. Until sarge came out (and sid got gnome 2.10) I was going to do Ubuntu on my new system, but sid/etch and hoary are almost the same... Keep up the good work. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
