Utah GLX
Some of you may have seen my forwarded email earlier today. In that mail I complained about having my X install replaced with a non functional half install onf X 4.0.1 and 3.3.6-18. I use utah to play games, do modeling, and develop GL applications. I am outraged that after expressing concern over the X team's roadmap to branden and others that they were not considering utah. The DRI drivers do not function as well as the DRI drivers for my card ( G400 ) and serveral other cards/chipsets. You're forcing people to give up performance, correctness, and hardware GL accelration altogether in some cases. I want to see action taken to change the dependences, so that X 4.0 aren't required and that utah support can continue until DRI catches up. If I would have known an overnight upgrade of gtk would reinstall a hack of 4.0.1 and 3.3.6 that doesn't even run as an SVGA server - then I would not have done it. I don't see how this policy makes sense. I am now using xfree 4.0.1 tarballs for the moment, and please don't hide behind the excuse that debain isn't supposed to work correctly. I think maintainers should take some responsibility and look for conflicts that they cause before they happen. cheers, Terry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II wrote: Who uses dselect anymore? Call me "Mr. Stone-age", but I do still use dselect sometimes. This is about a package maintianers *duty to account for _likely conflicts_. Ok, this gets me a bit upset. There are always unforeseen (or just plain forgotten-about) conflicts that come up. I've been guilty myself of uploading packages that turned out to have horrid bugs in them (which I quickly corrected, but never heard the end of it), but no maintainer that I know purposely releases something maliciously to wreck a user's setup. Also, you seem to forget that us Debian maintainers are VOLUNTEERS. I have sacrificed quite a bit to this project in general, and have spent countless cpu cycles trying to make sure that the new X packages worked well on Alpha (including over 36 hours of patching so far). To say that I have a *duty* to do this is moderately insulting since this work has taken time away from my family, my hobbies, and my other interests. From your argument, if I happen to upload a bad package before going on holiday, I should be flamed to death C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [kteague@sprocket.ddts.net: xserver-xsun drivers]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) writes: Does anyone know which driver the TurboGX uses? - Forwarded message from Ken Teague [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Ken Teague [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: xserver-xsun drivers Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:29:55 -0800 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Branden, sorry to bother you like this. I'm running Debian Sparc (woody) and can't find a listing of which driver to use for X with my TURBOXGX SBus card. I also checked www.xfree86.org but they don't list it either. Can you please point me to where I can find information about which driver I need for my frame buffer card? Thanks. - Ken - End forwarded message - -- G. Branden Robinson|Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny that Debian GNU/Linux |reading it will cause an aneurysm. This [EMAIL PROTECTED] |is not that .sig. http://deadbeast.net/~branden/ | The TurboGX is a cgsix. If he's using Xfree 3.3.x, xserver-xsun works. If it's Xfree 4, he should of course use xserver-xfree86 and the driver module is called "suncg6". www.xfree86.org doesn't seem to say anything at all about Sun drivers. Greetings, Tomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Utah GLX
* Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001212 00:14]: You're forcing people to give up performance, correctness, and hardware GL accelration altogether in some cases. Aha! We have found the root of the problem. :) Please reconsider this statement. Who forces you to do anything? Does Branden force you out of bed in the morning? Does Branden force you to use his 3.3.x packages? Does Branden force you to use his 4.0 packages? Does Branden force you to do *anything*? Who forces you out of bed in the morning? Who forces you to go to work each and every weekday in order to purchase video cards as nice as the g400? Who forces you to own a computer? Who forces you to use X at all? Or even the XFree86 implementation of X? Who forces you to use applications that require GL support? Who forces you to use applications that function properly under only one implementation of OpenGL?[1][2] No. No one forced you to do anything. The tools[3] exist to ensure your Utah-GLX setup is never touched. You chose not to use the tool. No one forced you to not use the tool. No one forced you to not know about the tool's existence, or to think the tool archaic. Let us go over this again: no one forced you to do anything. Upgrading the X packages is *entirely up to whoever owns the computer*. If you own your computer, then it is entirely up to you. No one forced you to do a blasted thing. No one forced you to upgrade X from 3.3.6 to 4.0.1. That is your decision, and your decision alone. (Don't you feel empowered now? :) Cheers. :) [1]: Yes, I crafted this sentence to disparage the applications. Consider it a different light or perspective on the problem, though I don't doubt that Utah-GLX might support certain operations better. [2]: Trademarks be damned. [3]: = in dselect. -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Utah GLX
[note: I've cut nothing from the body of Terry's original email, only interspersed my comments in his email.] * Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001212 00:52]: Seth Arnold wrote: Please reconsider this statement. Who forces you to do anything? Does Branden force you out of bed in the morning? Does Branden force you to use his 3.3.x packages? Does Branden force you to use his 4.0 packages? Does Branden force you to do *anything*? So I shouldn't trust packages from debian X team? I should install everything from source, and I should read every line of code. I put *trust in them. I didn't think I would have to check for a widget install ( gtk ) to render my new agp card unusable for the next few days. Ok. I think I get where this is headed. Instead of running ``apt-get upgrade'', run ``apt-get -u upgrade''. It will show you what will be upgraded. It sounds as if you knew many months ago that 4.0.x would break support for your currently installed DRI, and it sounds as if you were taken completely off-guard by its installation when you tried to install a new widget set. Using -u with apt would prevent this from happening. (I don't know why it isn't the default, but hey, I don't mind the extra three characters. :) I expressed concern about cutting out utah users before, and until DRI matures I can't see how you can defend the decision to weed it out. The thing is, no one is weeding anything out. Users can still run 3.3.x. cheers, Terry Cheers :) -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: quick fix for building nvidia xfree4 drivers on kernel 2.4.0-test11
but im fairly new to this so editing the complier flags would be a bit too much for me (now) If you're not familiar with Makefiles (yet ;), you can put the line: #define KERNEL_2_3 into the first line of your nv.h, this does the same. I set up a page with how to get to nvidia drivers for 2.4.0-testxx kernels http://russe.dhs.org/nvidia.html I personally don't think NVidia will have support for 2.4 kernels soon, but please check if there are newer driver versions Raphael Make this world a better place and support free software! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [harri@synopsys.COM: gdm and kdm can't start X]
Hi Harald, you need to reconfigure the pkg xserver-common do an dpkg-reconfigure xserver-common and select 'anybody'. This did the job for me. Be aware, it means anybody can start the xserver! Marcus On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 07:50:54PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote: Would the /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config file affect gdm or kdm? * Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001211 19:46]: Not sure what the problem is here; I don't know what would make the X server become a zombie process. - Forwarded message from Harald Dunkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Harald Dunkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: gdm and kdm can't start X Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:30:59 +0100 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.0-test11 i586) X-Accept-Language: en Hi Branden After the last update of XFree 4.0.1 gdm and kdm stopped working. The XServer doesn't come up. 'ps -ef' shows me '[ X defunct ]'. Is this an installation problem? Regards Harri -- Harald Dunkel | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Against stupidity the very gods Synopsys GmbH | Kaiserstr. 100 | Themselves contend in vain. 52134 Herzogenrath, Germany | +49 2407 9558 (fax? 44: 0) | Schiller, The Maid of Orleans - End forwarded message - -- G. Branden Robinson|Men use thought only to justify their Debian GNU/Linux |wrong doings, and speech only to conceal [EMAIL PROTECTED] |their thoughts. http://deadbeast.net/~branden/ |-- Voltaire -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.informatik.fh-muenchen.de/~ifw98070 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
Hi all, Why have you made the upgrade path in X impossible? You can't run utah on 4.0 - yet you blindly install 4.0 over every system by dependcies. You don't even bother checking /proc to see what card is installed. A simple grep of /proc/pci shows I have an AGP G400, not a V3! I have a machine that has half 3.3.6-18 and 4.0 installed now - and I had the utah package installed! You should check for utah before 'upgrading' blindly over it. I told you people not to do this - 3d accel is very important - you shouldn't dissmiss it outright. shouldn't DRI work with a G400 [normal, MAX] right out of the box with the latest 2.2.1x and latest 2.4.0-testx ? At least for me in XF86COnfig with a G400 and 2.4.0-test12-pre8 it seems to be enabled (through looking in the /var/log/XF*.log). So it seems that you just upgrade to the latest kernel, activate AGP Gart in the kernel and the corresponding G400 and you are set. Greetings Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [kteague@sprocket.ddts.net: xserver-xsun drivers]
www.xfree86.org doesn't seem to say anything at all about Sun drivers. On a vaguely related note, is there a way other than gpm to get sunmouse support under X4? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [kteague@sprocket.ddts.net: xserver-xsun drivers]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 09:02:07AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: www.xfree86.org doesn't seem to say anything at all about Sun drivers. On a vaguely related note, is there a way other than gpm to get sunmouse support under X4? "Other" way? It's rather simple. Setup gpm to repeat as msc and set X up to use type "MouseSystems" on device /etc/gpmdata. Works perfectly for me. -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tracking XFree86 CVS on a Potato system
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:49:49PM +0100, Charl P. Botha wrote: I don't track him that quickly... on average I build every 2nd or 3d release that he makes. I'm planning a potato build of 4.0.1-11 as soon as that's in woody for a day or two. Please wait for -12. -11 has some aggravating bugs in the packaging (debconf stuff). -- G. Branden Robinson |Any man who does not realize that he is Debian GNU/Linux|half an animal is only half a man. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Thornton Wilder http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | PGP signature
Re: xfree86 (4.0.1-11)
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:20:57AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
Hi,
the changelog says:
* updated MANIFEST.{i386,sparc,powerpc}
so it was not updated for m68k? :-(
I don't have an m68k box of my own to build on. When the upstream version
changes (as I note in my changelog entries with the new alphas), I cannot
be sure what new files are going to exist on a given architecture without
compiling the tree.
When I introduce new Debian-specific files, like "dexconf", I know what
arches they will show up on and I edit the MANIFEST files directly.
Arches I don't have direct access to will likely lag a Debian version when
the upstream version changes.
Also, Christian, feel free to build 4.0.1-11 so you can send me new *.m68k
files, but don't upload it; wait for 4.0.1-12.
4.0.1-12 will contain only Debian-specific revisions (bugfixes).
--
G. Branden Robinson |The errors of great men are venerable
Debian GNU/Linux|because they are more fruitful than the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |truths of little men.
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Friedrich Nietzsche
PGP signature
Re: [harri@synopsys.COM: gdm and kdm can't start X]
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:49:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Not sure what the problem is here; I don't know what would make the X server become a zombie process. Actually, I do know. There was a bug in the X server wrapper. It's fixed in 4.0.1-11. -- G. Branden Robinson | Men use thought only to justify their Debian GNU/Linux| wrong doings, and speech only to conceal [EMAIL PROTECTED] | their thoughts. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Voltaire PGP signature
Re: xfree86 (4.0.1-11)
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote: 4.0.1-12 will contain only Debian-specific revisions (bugfixes). I'm preparing an Alpha patch for -11 (and I guess -12) now. I'm test compiling now and will probably have the final patch later today. Will this be in time for -12? C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xfree86 (4.0.1-11)
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:59:17AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote: MANIFEST.m68k for this version is on http://people.debian.org/~cts/x4.0/ Was that too late? Or did I miss something else? I forgot you told me this. In the future, please tar up your *.m68k files, compress the tarball, and file a bug report with important severity so I can't miss it. Yes, this is one of the few things I give people permission to file release-critical bugs against for. :) Also, Christian, feel free to build 4.0.1-11 so you can send me new *.m68k files, but don't upload it; wait for 4.0.1-12. If I have to send you a new MANIFEST, the build will not complete. But if you do what I suggest in debian/README, you *can* complete the build and test the packages, even if they must be unofficial. 1) cp debian/MANIFEST.m68k.new debian/MANIFEST.m68k 2) fakeroot debian/rules install FORCE=1 3) fakeroot debian/rules binary The binary rule may fail, too, if you get some of the debhelper .m68k files wrong. If it does, fix them and repeat steps 2 and 3. -- G. Branden Robinson |Never underestimate the power of human Debian GNU/Linux|stupidity. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | PGP signature
[bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
Here is YOUR chance to help a former DPL with a FAQ! :) - Forwarded message from Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: user not authorized to run the X server Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 10:47:27 -0800 (PST) Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branden, I am seeing "user not authorized to run the X server" from xinit using the new Progeny X packages. I've tried editing Xsession so that anybody can start the server, and that doesn't help. Any clues? Thanks Bruce - End forwarded message - -- G. Branden Robinson|A celibate clergy is an especially good Debian GNU/Linux |idea, because it tends to suppress any [EMAIL PROTECTED] |hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. http://deadbeast.net/~branden/ |-- Carl Sagan PGP signature
Re: 4.0.1-11 breaks text and images on SiS 86C326
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 11:14:13AM -0800, Benjamin Redelings I wrote: Hello all, I have been using the new X server packages, and have been quite happy, up through 4.0.1-10. However, when I ran gdm after installing 4.0.1-11, the image was missing - it was replaced in fact by a bit of a dilbert comic that I had been looking at when running 4.0.1-10. Also, no text [snip] Very interestingly, I experience a similar problem under the 4.0.1 X server with the game X Scavenger (xscavenger). When Scavenger first starts up, the outer borders of the window are leftover bits of comics that I've been looking at. When I start the game, though, the screen is cleared and everything goes to normal. I've glanced over the source code of X Scavenger, and it appears to be a problem with the screen-clearing routine. Perhaps an undocumented feature (i.e., bug) of X 3.3.* that was "fixed" in 4.0.1? I suspect it's a 3.3.* bug because Scavenger exhibits similar problems when compiled on a Solaris workstation -- which leads me to suspect that it's relying on an old (broken) behaviour of the X libraries. If so, then I'd file a bug against gdm. (But of course, I didn't spend much time to look into this, so I might be totally off to lunch here.) I also use a SiS chipset, but it's the 6326 not the 86C326 (or are they the same thing?). I'm not sure if this problem is chipset-specific, but I don't know for sure. T -- INTEL = Only half of "intelligence". PGP signature
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
I am seeing "user not authorized to run the X server" from xinit using the new Progeny X packages. I've tried editing Xsession so that anybody can start the server, and that doesn't help. Any clues? Hey Bruce, are you really such a newbie that you can't read the list archives? ;) -- Joshua Shagam /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / No HTML/RTF in email www.cs.nmsu.edu/~joshagam X No Word docs in email mp3.com/fluffyporcupine/ \ Respect for open standards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
From: Joshua Shagam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey Bruce, are you really such a newbie that you can't read the list archives? ;) Well, you read the archives with a web browser, and my web browser happens to run under the x server that I'm not authorized to run right now. You want me to use LYNX Eeewww! Actually, I read the archives about a week ago when this first popped up, and didn't find the answer. So, for the moment, I made XFree86 setuid-root and started it by hand, and then started the window manager and the panel. But since I'm demonstrating this system to two vice-presidents of HP in the near future, and I'm writing an article for ZDNet on why Free Software is so cool today, you folks could be nice and save me some searching. Thanks Bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 11:45:10AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: From: Joshua Shagam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey Bruce, are you really such a newbie that you can't read the list archives? ;) Well, you read the archives with a web browser, and my web browser happens to run under the x server that I'm not authorized to run right now. You want me to use LYNX Eeewww! That's what w3m is for. :) Actually, I read the archives about a week ago when this first popped up, and didn't find the answer. When I had these problems (I wasn't paying attention when it came up the first time) it took me a while to find the exact thread which answers it. You want to do dpkg --reconfigure xfree86-common. So, for the moment, I made XFree86 setuid-root and started it by hand, and then started the window manager and the panel. But since I'm demonstrating this system to two vice-presidents of HP in the near future, and I'm writing an article for ZDNet on why Free Software is so cool today, you folks could be nice and save me some searching. ZDNet? Wow, good thing I don't read Slashdot anymore, or I'd have to consider flaming you for that. :) -- Joshua Shagam /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / No HTML/RTF in email www.cs.nmsu.edu/~joshagam X No Word docs in email mp3.com/fluffyporcupine/ \ Respect for open standards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Utah GLX
* Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001212 01:32]: The thing is, no one is weeding anything out. Users can still run 3.3.x. You can't install 3.3.6-18 anymore, so I think it is cutting users out. Perhaps it is cutting out users who join the project with woody's original release. You don't fall into this category. You *can* install 3.3.6-11potato18 though, which is probably pretty damn close to the 3.3.6-18 you miss so much. Games like tribes 2 won't be running on DRI, what will you thin debian users will say to that? I never liked how debian maintainers assume certian packages that can no longer be obtianed exist on a users system. Eh? Hmm. Maybe you forgot a 'not' somewhere in this sentence. Could you please rephrase that, and more directly apply it to your case of not putting the 3.3.6 packages on hold? I'm going to have to reinstall X and all my X dep apps tomarrow, and I hate knowing even after expressing concern agian on the issue of utah - I've wasted 2 days fixing it, yet I'm going to have to manually alter my status database to lock out debian X anyway. Oh man, I remember when I had a slow internet connection. Thank god for ATT and their cable connections! :) Downloading the new X packages takes only a few minutes, and I imagine the old X packages would download just as quickly for me. All the best to you and your poor modem. :) -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It got better
Rafal's instructions did the trick. Thanks! Bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 12:47:29PM -0700, Joshua Shagam wrote: Actually, I read the archives about a week ago when this first popped up, and didn't find the answer. When I had these problems (I wasn't paying attention when it came up the first time) it took me a while to find the exact thread which answers it. You want to do dpkg --reconfigure xfree86-common. That's dpkg-reconfigure, actually... Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 11:45:10AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: From: Joshua Shagam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey Bruce, are you really such a newbie that you can't read the list archives? ;) Well, you read the archives with a web browser, and my web browser happens to run under the x server that I'm not authorized to run right now. You want me to use LYNX Eeewww! Actually, I read the archives about a week ago when this first popped up, and didn't find the answer. So, for the moment, I made XFree86 setuid-root and started it by hand, and then started the window manager and the panel. But since I'm demonstrating this system to two vice-presidents of HP in the near future, and I'm writing an article for ZDNet on why Free Software is so cool today, you folks could be nice and save me some searching. The selection has moved from /etc/X11/Xserver to /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config Edit that file, and all will be well. -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
Seth Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Terry, a few quick comments -- first, Utah-glx is in the past. While their work may have been nifty at one point, and for people running 3.3.x perhaps necessary, XF 4.0.1 has a *much* easier GL system. Grmpf! Do you know what DRI currently supports vs what Utah currently supports in terms of hardware and/or features? I din't think so. DRI's implementation is orders of magnitude cleaner and it *is* a better option for some people (most of the people, probably), but brushing Utah as a thing "in the past" is, at best, cluelessness. If *you* had trouble setting up Utah drivers it doesn't mean that *everyone* will have them. -- Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ssh -- X11 forwarding with new server-xfree86
Lukas, I think there are several things going on at once. xhost allows individual hosts to connect to X -- by default, X doesn't listen to tcp sockets (the -nolisten tcp bit in one of the /etc/X11/ files) so remote hosts will not be able to connect, with or without xhost authorization. Also, ssh does the tunnelling for you -- if you manually set DISPLAY on the other machine, which may be done in a shell script someplace :), then you do not get the benefit of ssh's tunnelling. Also, I would hope ssh could dump the local end of the pipe to X through unix domain sockets, for the slight speed help -- but if it requires using tcp to talk to the local server (which wouldn't surprise me at all), then you need to remove the -nolisten tcp bit. The fact that it complains about not opening the 10.0.1.4:0.0 display says to me that the DISPLAY environment variable is set someplace. Note also that Debian ships ssh in such a fashion that X forwarding doens't take place automatically -- you must edit files in /etc/ssh/ to fix this. (This is to prevent problems mentioned on [EMAIL PROTECTED]) HTH * Lukas Ruf [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001212 13:45]: Dear all, I updated my woody box yesterday to the newest server for XFree86 4.0. Since then, I cannot remotely start any tools that have to connect to the X-Client. The error message _X11TransSocketINETConnect: Can't connect: errno = 111 Error: Can't open display: 10.0.1.4:0.0 [1]Exit 1communicator appears even I run xhost + or I explicitely allowed the X server to connect. Does anyone know where I can fix the problem? Thanks in advance for any help. Kind regards, Lukas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: pissed off. An overnight upgrade of gtk shouldn't break my x server. As the gtkglarea maintainer (and since you hinted it's the OpenGL subsystem what broke) I feel this is somehow my fault... could you please elaborate on this? -- Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 04:20:30PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 12:47:29PM -0700, Joshua Shagam wrote: Actually, I read the archives about a week ago when this first popped up, and didn't find the answer. When I had these problems (I wasn't paying attention when it came up the first time) it took me a while to find the exact thread which answers it. You want to do dpkg --reconfigure xfree86-common. That's dpkg-reconfigure, actually... Oops. My bad. :) -- Joshua Shagam /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / No HTML/RTF in email www.cs.nmsu.edu/~joshagam X No Word docs in email mp3.com/fluffyporcupine/ \ Respect for open standards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-11 gives graphics corruption with V3 3000
xserver-xfree86-11 gives corruption on my V3 3000. Black bars run across the top of the screen, and moving windows causes corruption. I'm running at 1792x1344 using DRI. Dropping back to the xserver-10 package (and keeping the -11 ones for everything else) fixed things. Does -11 have a new upstream version? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ernst_sonnleitner@freenet.de: xdm don't run his start script with german settings (LANG=de_DE)]
- Forwarded message from Ernst Sonnleitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Ernst Sonnleitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: xdm don't run his start script with german settings (LANG=de_DE) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:33:28 +0100 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:31:48PM -0500 Organization: nobody is perfect Hello If I don't set locale xdm work well - login with user/password -my windowsmanager starts es@sonnleitner:~$ locale LANG=POSIX LC_CTYPE="POSIX" LC_NUMERIC="POSIX" LC_TIME="POSIX" LC_COLLATE="POSIX" LC_MONETARY="POSIX" LC_MESSAGES="POSIX" LC_PAPER="POSIX" LC_NAME="POSIX" LC_ADDRESS="POSIX" LC_TELEPHONE="POSIX" LC_MEASUREMENT="POSIX" LC_IDENTIFICATION="POSIX" - If I set my "locale" with /etc/language-de #!/bin/sh # $Id: language-de,v 1.4 1998/02/20 18:34:36 leutloff Exp $ # settings for german speaking users set LANG LANG=de_DE export LANG and activates it with /etc/X11/Xsession: if [ -f /etc/language-de ]; then source /etc/language-de; fi /etc/profile: if [ -f /etc/language-de ]; then source /etc/language-de; fi es@sonnleitner:~$ locale LANG=de_DE LC_CTYPE="de_DE" LC_NUMERIC="de_DE" LC_TIME="de_DE" LC_COLLATE="de_DE" LC_MONETARY="de_DE" LC_MESSAGES="de_DE" LC_PAPER="de_DE" LC_NAME="de_DE" LC_ADDRESS="de_DE" LC_TELEPHONE="de_DE" LC_MEASUREMENT="de_DE" LC_IDENTIFICATION="de_DE" LC_ALL= xdm started but after the loginscreen, after user/password return there is only one xterm open, no windowmanager started. I have read about that as the emergency screen, normaly touched with user/password F1 with the possibility to repair a bad start script. Regards Ernst - End forwarded message - -- G. Branden Robinson| The basic test of freedom is perhaps Debian GNU/Linux | less in what we are free to do than in [EMAIL PROTECTED] | what we are free not to do. http://deadbeast.net/~branden/ | -- Eric Hoffer PGP signature
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
* Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001212 14:40]: DRI's implementation is orders of magnitude cleaner and it *is* a better option for some people (most of the people, probably), but brushing Utah as a thing "in the past" is, at best, cluelessness. If *you* had trouble setting up Utah drivers it doesn't mean that *everyone* will have them. Well, I am at least partially correct in the sense that Utah-GLX does not work with 4.0.1. It only works with versions of 3.3.x; a version most decidedly much older than 4.0.1. That is my definition of 'past' -- something that once upon a time worked, but does not work any longer. Under this definition, the transparent cryptographic filesystem is "in the past" -- it worked with Linux kernel 2.0, but not newer releases. It might have been very good, and served the needs of its users well. It still provides functionality that hasn't been supplied by other packages. But it too is in the past, because it requires an older version of software than most people want to run. It seems clear to me that Utah-GLX fits this definition nicely. (Otherwise, Terry wouldn't be pissed right now. :) Whether it is better or worse, I am not prepared to make this sort of value judgement. -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Xwrapper.config
Branden, could you change the error message (sorry, only root is allowed to run X) to state that the answer lies in Xwrapper.config, or dpkg-reconfigure correct package name here? Thanks :) -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[branden@deadbeast.net: [ernst_sonnleitner@freenet.de: xdm don't run his start script with german settings (LANG=de_DE)]]
Ernst, I *think* the end problem is, XF86 uses a different set of locale names than FSF's glibc uses. I don't know the answer. Branden and (ben?) have exchanged a few emails in debian-x about possible solutions/sources of the problem. The debian-x archives may be interesting reading. Until something is figured out (or someone reminds me of what the fix was, if there is a fix already :) I would suggest setting your locale information on a per-process basis. - Forwarded message from Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Envelope-to: sarnold@localhost Delivery-date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:08:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:06:21 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:46:12 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]: xdm don't run his start script with german settings (LANG=de_DE)] Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) Resent-Message-ID: lHmhfC.A.u_.2qqN6@murphy Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailing-List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] archive/latest/1991 X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: list Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Bcc: - Forwarded message from Ernst Sonnleitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Ernst Sonnleitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: xdm don't run his start script with german settings (LANG=de_DE) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:33:28 +0100 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:31:48PM -0500 Organization: nobody is perfect Hello If I don't set locale xdm work well - login with user/password -my windowsmanager starts es@sonnleitner:~$ locale LANG=POSIX LC_CTYPE="POSIX" LC_NUMERIC="POSIX" LC_TIME="POSIX" LC_COLLATE="POSIX" LC_MONETARY="POSIX" LC_MESSAGES="POSIX" LC_PAPER="POSIX" LC_NAME="POSIX" LC_ADDRESS="POSIX" LC_TELEPHONE="POSIX" LC_MEASUREMENT="POSIX" LC_IDENTIFICATION="POSIX" - If I set my "locale" with /etc/language-de #!/bin/sh # $Id: language-de,v 1.4 1998/02/20 18:34:36 leutloff Exp $ # settings for german speaking users set LANG LANG=de_DE export LANG and activates it with /etc/X11/Xsession: if [ -f /etc/language-de ]; then source /etc/language-de; fi /etc/profile: if [ -f /etc/language-de ]; then source /etc/language-de; fi es@sonnleitner:~$ locale LANG=de_DE LC_CTYPE="de_DE" LC_NUMERIC="de_DE" LC_TIME="de_DE" LC_COLLATE="de_DE" LC_MONETARY="de_DE" LC_MESSAGES="de_DE" LC_PAPER="de_DE" LC_NAME="de_DE" LC_ADDRESS="de_DE" LC_TELEPHONE="de_DE" LC_MEASUREMENT="de_DE" LC_IDENTIFICATION="de_DE" LC_ALL= xdm started but after the loginscreen, after user/password return there is only one xterm open, no windowmanager started. I have read about that as the emergency screen, normaly touched with user/password F1 with the possibility to repair a bad start script. Regards Ernst - End forwarded message - -- G. Branden Robinson| The basic test of freedom is perhaps Debian GNU/Linux | less in what we are free to do than in [EMAIL PROTECTED] | what we are free not to do. http://deadbeast.net/~branden/ | -- Eric Hoffer - End forwarded message - -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
Seth Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, I am at least partially correct in the sense that Utah-GLX does not work with 4.0.1. It only works with versions of 3.3.x; a version most decidedly much older than 4.0.1. That is my definition of 'past' -- something that once upon a time worked, but does not work any longer. Although a very convenient definition, it doesn't work either. The point in question is GL support. Noone is even *thinking* about getting Utah-GLX to work with 4.0 (that would be a major waste of effort), but right now there are people who would prefer to use Utah over GLX for a bunch of different reasons: to name one, DRI's resource management is different than Utah's, and Utah's has some advantages for some people. Whether it is better or worse, I am not prepared to make this sort of value judgement. What value judgement are you talking about? This is a (measurable) technical issue. -- Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
Quoting Christopher C. Chimelis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
To end this long reply, I suggest this: compile your own Xserver and utah
and install it in /usr/local until things work out to the point where they
are usable again for your setup.
What I did was use the potato 3.3.6 xserver, because xserver-mach64
doesn't get built anymore, and repacked utah-glx without Conflicts:
xfree86-common(=4.0) line.
For some more fun, today I built xserver-mach64 from 3.3.6-18 sources,
with very little problems - added it back to
debian/{control,create-arch-xservers} and to debian/patches/000a*
(whatever it's called). Now I have a xserver-mach64_3.3.6-18, almost
like it still existed in distro. ;-)
Had to do that because there is no DRI for mach64 yet, and I like
those nifty gl screensavers, not to mention tuxracer.
One could file a bug to utah-glx package and request replacing of
Conflicts: xfree86-common(=4.0) with a dependency on
xserver-common-v3, or maybe on any of those xserver packages utah-glx
works with. That would deal with the removal of utah-glx on upgrade.
Zoran
--
menage a trois, n.:
Using both hands to masturbate.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.0.1-11 breaks text and images on SiS 86C326
Very interestingly, I experience a similar problem under the 4.0.1 X server with the game X Scavenger (xscavenger). When Scavenger first starts up, the outer borders of the window are leftover bits of comics that I've been looking at. When I start the game, though, the screen is cleared and everything goes to normal. This is a bit different than my problem: ALL my applications fail at ALL points. (OK, actually I guess the applications that fail are: icewm, GNOME, gdm, and gnome-terminal). For some reason, the arrow on the menus in icewm still work, though no text is shown. YOUR problem may be that you have not added the line "VideoRAM 4096" to you card specification? If X tries to use all 8 megs, then screen redraws become somewhat untrustworthy. X 3.3.x automagically only used 4M on 8M cards, but on 4.0.1 you have to do this manually it seems. I also use a SiS chipset, but it's the 6326 not the 86C326 (or are they the same thing?). I'm not sure if this problem is chipset-specific, but I don't know for sure. This IS the same card I think: I got the model number from /proc/pci, I think it is also called a 6326. So, in summary, this is NOT a bug against gdm, but a bug in the xserver. -BenRI -- q -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tracking XFree86 CVS on a Potato system
Dear Seth, Thank you very much for your advice. SA You can indeed build Branden's packages for potato, but Charl P. Botha SA has done this already! I am aware of Charl's packages. The issue is that I want to *litterally* track XFree86 CVS. I want to be able to say ``cvs diff'' when I'm working on XFree86. Unless someone has better ideas, then, I guess I'll install Charl's packages and then overwrite them with my own binaries (compiled from a checked out CVS source tree). SA But, if you are truly making this a development box, why not go SA all out, and run woody, what with its often updates to everything? It's a devel box, which is exactly why it needs to run a stable distribution :-) (When I see a bug in XFree86, I want to be fairly certain it's an XFree86 bug, not a but in some other package.) Regards, Juliusz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 04:20:30PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 12:47:29PM -0700, Joshua Shagam wrote: When I had these problems (I wasn't paying attention when it came up the first time) it took me a while to find the exact thread which answers it. You want to do dpkg --reconfigure xfree86-common. That's dpkg-reconfigure, actually... "dpkg-reconfigure xfree86-common" doesn't seem to do anything for me. It runs, exits, and Xwrapper.config is exactly the same as it was before. Editing by hand does the job, of course... Drew -- PGP public key available at http://dparsons.webjump.com/drewskey.txt Fingerprint: A110 EAE1 D7D2 8076 5FE0 EC0A B6CE 7041 6412 4E4A -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
* Drew Parsons [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001212 18:18]: That's dpkg-reconfigure, actually... "dpkg-reconfigure xfree86-common" doesn't seem to do anything for me. It runs, exits, and Xwrapper.config is exactly the same as it was before. This would probably mean you set your debconf severity level to such a state that it doesn't bother asking you the question. Reconfigure debconf, and see if that changes matters. :) (And if you think Branden screwed up the priority of the question, be sure to let the list know. :) -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.0.1-11 breaks text and images on SiS 86C326
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 05:54:22PM -0800, Benjamin Redelings I wrote: Very interestingly, I experience a similar problem under the 4.0.1 X server with the game X Scavenger (xscavenger). When Scavenger first starts up, the outer borders of the window are leftover bits of comics that I've been looking at. When I start the game, though, the screen is cleared and everything goes to normal. This is a bit different than my problem: ALL my applications fail at ALL points. (OK, actually I guess the applications that fail are: icewm, GNOME, gdm, and gnome-terminal). For some reason, the arrow on the menus in icewm still work, though no text is shown. Weird. I just upgraded to -11 and when xdm starts, the login widget shows up as a blank box. Even weirder, switching to a text console and back suddenly brings the text back! (Except that it cleared the background to white in the process) Everything seems to work OK now, but earlier on, on my first attempt to restart X, the X server crashed after I logged in. YOUR problem may be that you have not added the line "VideoRAM 4096" to you card specification? If X tries to use all 8 megs, then screen redraws become somewhat untrustworthy. X 3.3.x automagically only used 4M on 8M cards, but on 4.0.1 you have to do this manually it seems. No, my XF86Config-4 explicitly states "VideoRam 4096", and I'm still getting the same problem with Scavenger. In fact, it still does the same thing right now, after that text-console-switching weirdness I just described. So, although your problem probably isn't caused by gdm, I suspect Scavenger has a bug (or perhaps library incompatibility?) [snip] This IS the same card I think: I got the model number from /proc/pci, I think it is also called a 6326. OK, I thought so... the numbers look too similar to be a coincidence anyway :-) So, in summary, this is NOT a bug against gdm, but a bug in the xserver. [snip] Hmm. Might it have anything to do with what I described? Sounds like we're experiencing the same problem. Try switching to a text VC and back, and see if that helps. It worked for me (tm), YMMV. T -- Winners never quit, quitters never win. But those who never quit AND never win are idiots. PGP signature
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
Actually, I even filed a bug on this. I did the investigation and found the answer myself, dpkg-reconfigure xserver-common... However, my issue is not HOW to fix it, but rather after fixing it it does not stay fixed. Every upgrade requires me to again dpkg- reconfigure xserver-common. That was the thought behind my bug, maybe Branden doesn't quite realize what I meant. He said this is now the proper way to act for xserver. Maybe he isn't aware it needs to be reconfigured EVERY time? Gordon Sadler On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 06:21:17PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote: This would probably mean you set your debconf severity level to such a state that it doesn't bother asking you the question. Reconfigure debconf, and see if that changes matters. :) (And if you think Branden screwed up the priority of the question, be sure to let the list know. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 06:21:17PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote: * Drew Parsons [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001212 18:18]: That's dpkg-reconfigure, actually... "dpkg-reconfigure xfree86-common" doesn't seem to do anything for me. It runs, exits, and Xwrapper.config is exactly the same as it was before. This would probably mean you set your debconf severity level to such a state that it doesn't bother asking you the question. Reconfigure debconf, and see if that changes matters. :) (And if you think Branden screwed up the priority of the question, be sure to let the list know. :) I found the problem. It's not done in xfree86-common, it's done by xserver-common! It's asking me the right questions now :) Incidentally, the /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config is not found by dpkg -S, which is technically fine, since, as I understand it, the file isn't "in" the package, it's only generated dynamically by it. But it might have been helpful for it to be listed, so that I could have verified earlier which package it is in. Are there reasonable grounds for the file to be explicitly placed in the X source, so it's registered as belonging? Or, more ambitiously, should debconf (or whatever is generating the file) be able to add the new file to the database of registered files when desired? Drew -- PGP public key available at http://dparsons.webjump.com/drewskey.txt Fingerprint: A110 EAE1 D7D2 8076 5FE0 EC0A B6CE 7041 6412 4E4A -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Utah GLX
Seth Arnold wrote: Perhaps it is cutting out users who join the project with woody's original release. You don't fall into this category. You *can* install 3.3.6-11potato18 though, which is probably pretty damn close to the 3.3.6-18 you miss so much. I feel like after giving a 'head's up' on my concern over utah and the X roadmap, that I shouldn't have to worry about deps going so far as to choose my X version. Some of this relates to some of the main things I have critized debian for since I started using it a few years back. When I brought up concerns, I was dismissed. When I asked why I was dissmissed, I was told the old stand by "it's not supposed to work". Also the mentality that I *should have to repair the packages and shouldn't trust the packagers judgement. It is very infuriating over time... I can't believe that I should put all these packages I'm assumed to have on hold so often either. Eh? Hmm. Maybe you forgot a 'not' somewhere in this sentence. Could you please rephrase that, and more directly apply it to your case of not putting the 3.3.6 packages on hold? What I was saying is that some commerial applications in linux require utah. cheers, Terry -- --- | GooseEgghttp://gooseegg.sourceforge.net | | QuakeForge http://www.quakeforge.net | | Personalhttp://www.westga.edu/~stu7440| | | | Death is running Debian GNU/Linux| --- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: As the gtkglarea maintainer (and since you hinted it's the OpenGL subsystem what broke) I feel this is somehow my fault... could you please elaborate on this? It seems to be that gtk depends on X 4.0.1+, and that caused my working xserver to be purged and replaced. Still, I want to be able to use 3.3.6-18 and utah packages for G400 and G200 - and they're not in woody anymore. My gripe is that I can't do a new install of 3.3 and utah on any machine, or even ( by using debian ) replace the xserver and libs I lost. cheers, Terry -- --- | GooseEgghttp://gooseegg.sourceforge.net | | QuakeForge http://www.quakeforge.net | | Personalhttp://www.westga.edu/~stu7440| | | | Death is running Debian GNU/Linux| --- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 4.0.1-11 breaks text and images on SiS 86C326
Weird. I just upgraded to -11 and when xdm starts, the login widget shows
up as a blank box. Even weirder, switching to a text console and back
suddenly brings the text back! (Except that it cleared the background to
white in the process) Everything seems to work OK now, but earlier on, on
my first attempt to restart X, the X server crashed after I logged in.
Yup, that is the bug that I'm seeing.
I haven't tried switching to text mode and back: but I just found out
that changing resolutions and changing back (e.g. CTRL-ALT-{+,-}) also
works.
It seems that some kind of video initialization is not being called
when the server first starts.
-BenRI
--
q
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
Seth Arnold wrote: Compared against Utah, at least the last time I looked at it, this is really pretty quick and easy. Whether or not the features supported by Utah are imporant enough to justify the work involved with getting it to go is entirely dependent upon the applications one needs to run. For me, I never missed the features. For mongoose (terry?), he obviously misses the features of Utah, but not enough to ensure they wouldn't be overwritten. So, it is your stance that you will not support cards without DRI drivers - and only support 3d cards by their DRI drivers only? People shouldn't be artificial limited like that from my view. If this was about quick and easy and using drivers that weren't fully functional, then I could be running NT. This is about a policy change that wasn't well thought. Some people will need utah for some time, and not allowing new installs of xservers to support utah seems to artifically impose huge hurtles for users and shops alike. cheers, Terry -- --- | GooseEgghttp://gooseegg.sourceforge.net | | QuakeForge http://www.quakeforge.net | | Personalhttp://www.westga.edu/~stu7440| | | | Death is running Debian GNU/Linux| --- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
* Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001211 23:29]: I told the X people months ago not to force out utah - that's why I'm pissed off. An overnight upgrade of gtk shouldn't break my x server. I also think hiding behind the debian stand-by "it's not even supposed to work" is why packages are always broken - no one cares. Why *should* XF86 support Utah? SGI donated GLX, PI integrated it, MetroX donated code to load drivers as modules at run time, the kernel supports the AGPGART driver needed for this new GLX stuff... Don't get me wrong -- the nice people doing the Utah-GLX broke important ground, but trying to support it in 4.0 doesn't seem productive to me. Trying to get Debian to support something upstream doesn't support seems even less productive. And as for broken packages, if one *really* wishes to avoid this situation, one will run one of the stable releases. If I had a company, with important servers, they would all run stable. For a home machine, I am perfectly willing to wonder why on earth something broke, and I even find a level of fun in tracking it down -- so I run unstable. If you don't fit this description, then you have the choice of running stable. *Those* packages *do* work, as evidenced by the large number of people running Debian. No, I've never heard the "it's not even supposed to work" line by anyone other than myself -- and that once was in relation to someone using the woody packages (linked against glibc 2.2.94 or something like that) being run on potato. (To this end, Charl P. Botha has been doing a good job compiling the 4.0.1 source packages for potato. This is supposed to work fine, and from his description (and user's accolades) it does work fine.) As for your recent problems -- welcome to the bleeding edge. When apt offers to remove a bunch of packages for you, while installing a whole bunch, it *does* ask if this is all right with you first. If you discover after installing the new packages that it wasn't right for you, backing out the new packages isn't too bad either. dpkg provides two command line options to this effect, and apt, despite providing only one option, it is usually the option people want. :) Life on the bleeding edge sometimes means giving up on the past. If there are parts of the past you didn't want to give up on, it is easily within your abilities using apt to prevent this, or running a distribution of Debian where the past is what you live in constantly. It isn't horrible -- many people do that. I wouldn't consider anything else for the machines where their continued stability matters. Cheers. :) -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Joshua Shagam wrote: It would be nice if the XFree 4 packages had a 'Conflicts: utah-glx' in it, but as has been said already, you ARE running Debian *usntable*, and you reap what you sow in that regard... don't take it out on Branden, please. I told the X people months ago not to force out utah - that's why I'm pissed off. An overnight upgrade of gtk shouldn't break my x server. I also think hiding behind the debian stand-by it's not even supposed to work is why packages are always broken - no one cares. cheers, Terry --- | GooseEgghttp://gooseegg.sourceforge.net | | QuakeForge http://www.quakeforge.net | | Personalhttp://www.westga.edu/~stu7440| | | | Dream is running Debian GNU/Linux| ---
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Seth Arnold wrote: Terry, a few quick comments -- first, Utah-glx is in the past. While their work may have been nifty at one point, and for people running 3.3.x perhaps necessary, XF 4.0.1 has a *much* easier GL system. This is about poor forethought. I complained months ago about how the X team was moving to lock out utah-glx. Utah has more users than DRI - why do this? I woke up from an overnight upgrade of gtk to find my X install made unusable. The point is I need utah to delevop and run Open GL apps, until DRI matures - by making utah uninstallable and not accounting for an installed utah - branden has effectively banned it. You might want utah to play tribes2 or run a modeler one day too. cheers, Terry --- | GooseEgghttp://gooseegg.sourceforge.net | | QuakeForge http://www.quakeforge.net | | Personalhttp://www.westga.edu/~stu7440| | | | Dream is running Debian GNU/Linux| ---
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 02:38:06AM -0500, Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II wrote: On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Seth Arnold wrote: Terry, a few quick comments -- first, Utah-glx is in the past. While their work may have been nifty at one point, and for people running 3.3.x perhaps necessary, XF 4.0.1 has a *much* easier GL system. This is about poor forethought. I complained months ago about how the X team was moving to lock out utah-glx. Utah has more users than DRI - why do this? I woke up from an overnight upgrade of gtk to find my X install made unusable. Well, it was also a poor forethought for you to not issue a package hold on the XFree packages. It's easy enough to use dselect to request that a package not be upgraded... (hint: = key) -- Joshua Shagam /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / No HTML/RTF in email www.cs.nmsu.edu/~joshagam X No Word docs in email mp3.com/fluffyporcupine/ \ Respect for open standards
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
* Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001211 23:29]: I told the X people months ago not to force out utah - that's why I'm pissed off. An overnight upgrade of gtk shouldn't break my x server. I also think hiding behind the debian stand-by it's not even supposed to work is why packages are always broken - no one cares. Why *should* XF86 support Utah? SGI donated GLX, PI integrated it, MetroX donated code to load drivers as modules at run time, the kernel supports the AGPGART driver needed for this new GLX stuff... Don't get me wrong -- the nice people doing the Utah-GLX broke important ground, but trying to support it in 4.0 doesn't seem productive to me. Trying to get Debian to support something upstream doesn't support seems even less productive. And as for broken packages, if one *really* wishes to avoid this situation, one will run one of the stable releases. If I had a company, with important servers, they would all run stable. For a home machine, I am perfectly willing to wonder why on earth something broke, and I even find a level of fun in tracking it down -- so I run unstable. If you don't fit this description, then you have the choice of running stable. *Those* packages *do* work, as evidenced by the large number of people running Debian. No, I've never heard the it's not even supposed to work line by anyone other than myself -- and that once was in relation to someone using the woody packages (linked against glibc 2.2.94 or something like that) being run on potato. (To this end, Charl P. Botha has been doing a good job compiling the 4.0.1 source packages for potato. This is supposed to work fine, and from his description (and user's accolades) it does work fine.) As for your recent problems -- welcome to the bleeding edge. When apt offers to remove a bunch of packages for you, while installing a whole bunch, it *does* ask if this is all right with you first. If you discover after installing the new packages that it wasn't right for you, backing out the new packages isn't too bad either. dpkg provides two command line options to this effect, and apt, despite providing only one option, it is usually the option people want. :) Life on the bleeding edge sometimes means giving up on the past. If there are parts of the past you didn't want to give up on, it is easily within your abilities using apt to prevent this, or running a distribution of Debian where the past is what you live in constantly. It isn't horrible -- many people do that. I wouldn't consider anything else for the machines where their continued stability matters. Cheers. :) -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.''
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Joshua Shagam wrote: Well, it was also a poor forethought for you to not issue a package hold on the XFree packages. It's easy enough to use dselect to request that a package not be upgraded... (hint: = key) Who uses dselect anymore? This is about a package maintianers *duty to account for _likely conflicts_. cheers, Terry --- | GooseEgghttp://gooseegg.sourceforge.net | | QuakeForge http://www.quakeforge.net | | Personalhttp://www.westga.edu/~stu7440| | | | Dream is running Debian GNU/Linux| ---
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II wrote: I told the X people months ago not to force out utah - that's why I'm pissed off. An overnight upgrade of gtk shouldn't break my x server. I also think hiding behind the debian stand-by it's not even supposed to work is why packages are always broken - no one cares. I don't think anyone is saying it's not even supposed to workwhat I think is the case here is that we're all trying to shake the bugs out of the DRI code using wider-spread testing. Keep in mind that woody will not be released next week, so the transition is actually quite timely and important. We could remain using XF86 v3.3.x forever, but I think that we would hear more about not trying to do the changeover at this point in woody's development. Keep in mind also that, while you may run on ix86, there are MANY of us that don't (I have two sparcs, three alphas, and a mips in my home lab that I run Debian on. This version of X using DRI is much improved on at least Alpha and has the potential (really soon now) to compile and run on my Indy sans huge amounts of patching, unlike any other X version prior. Lastly, the no one cares argument is rather insulting and, in my experience, will not persuade anyone to look into your problems or respect your opinion about the matter (last time someone insulted me, I just walked away...which, I suspect, is pretty common and civilised human behaviour). I can say, as a maintainer of more than four packages for Debian, WE DO CARE, but you have to allow us time to shake out problems. We've all made mistakes and released things that break the norm, but that's part of knowing your package, the future roadmap of the packages involved, and the release cycle timing of unstable. I back Branden's decisions to proceed with the upgrade to DRI. He hosted experimental packages on his own for quite some time, hoping that he would get enough people to test them while trying to fix up the monumental packaging requirements of something this size. Whether he got the feedback he needed or not, he made the decision and I think that unstable is better because of it (now I finally have an X server that runs on my V3 in my main Alpha and a much less buggy X server on the other two). Sure, there's going to be some hiccups and problems, hence the neverending startx is telling me that I'm not allowed to run the X server anymore threads, but things happen in unstable and sometimes, we just have to weather through them or do what we have to do to suit our specific needs. To end this long reply, I suggest this: compile your own Xserver and utah and install it in /usr/local until things work out to the point where they are usable again for your setup. Running unstable means that YMMV, which sounds like an excuse, but it's really the truth and is not meant to discount complaints. Again, things happen, older software sometimes isn't compatible with newer software, etc...either way, the point is, we do care and, if you're looking for stability, stick with potato and just compile the packages from woody that you need yourself until woody is released. C
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II wrote: Who uses dselect anymore? Call me Mr. Stone-age, but I do still use dselect sometimes. This is about a package maintianers *duty to account for _likely conflicts_. Ok, this gets me a bit upset. There are always unforeseen (or just plain forgotten-about) conflicts that come up. I've been guilty myself of uploading packages that turned out to have horrid bugs in them (which I quickly corrected, but never heard the end of it), but no maintainer that I know purposely releases something maliciously to wreck a user's setup. Also, you seem to forget that us Debian maintainers are VOLUNTEERS. I have sacrificed quite a bit to this project in general, and have spent countless cpu cycles trying to make sure that the new X packages worked well on Alpha (including over 36 hours of patching so far). To say that I have a *duty* to do this is moderately insulting since this work has taken time away from my family, my hobbies, and my other interests. From your argument, if I happen to upload a bad package before going on holiday, I should be flamed to death C
Re: building xfree86 4 for debian/arm
By itself this is pretty odd, but #56 is simply not defined in /usr/include/elf.h at all. I am rebuilding right now (a 10-hour process) with Elf_Rel rather than Elf_Rela setup, to see if that makes a difference. (Seing that ARM, like i386, unlike any of the other processors, is Little Endian). You do indeed need to use Rel, not Rela, for ARM -- this doesn't actually relate to endianness, but to the format of the relocation entries themselves. p.
Re: Utah GLX
* Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001212 00:14]: You're forcing people to give up performance, correctness, and hardware GL accelration altogether in some cases. Aha! We have found the root of the problem. :) Please reconsider this statement. Who forces you to do anything? Does Branden force you out of bed in the morning? Does Branden force you to use his 3.3.x packages? Does Branden force you to use his 4.0 packages? Does Branden force you to do *anything*? Who forces you out of bed in the morning? Who forces you to go to work each and every weekday in order to purchase video cards as nice as the g400? Who forces you to own a computer? Who forces you to use X at all? Or even the XFree86 implementation of X? Who forces you to use applications that require GL support? Who forces you to use applications that function properly under only one implementation of OpenGL?[1][2] No. No one forced you to do anything. The tools[3] exist to ensure your Utah-GLX setup is never touched. You chose not to use the tool. No one forced you to not use the tool. No one forced you to not know about the tool's existence, or to think the tool archaic. Let us go over this again: no one forced you to do anything. Upgrading the X packages is *entirely up to whoever owns the computer*. If you own your computer, then it is entirely up to you. No one forced you to do a blasted thing. No one forced you to upgrade X from 3.3.6 to 4.0.1. That is your decision, and your decision alone. (Don't you feel empowered now? :) Cheers. :) [1]: Yes, I crafted this sentence to disparage the applications. Consider it a different light or perspective on the problem, though I don't doubt that Utah-GLX might support certain operations better. [2]: Trademarks be damned. [3]: = in dselect. -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.''
Re: Utah GLX
[note: I've cut nothing from the body of Terry's original email, only interspersed my comments in his email.] * Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001212 00:52]: Seth Arnold wrote: Please reconsider this statement. Who forces you to do anything? Does Branden force you out of bed in the morning? Does Branden force you to use his 3.3.x packages? Does Branden force you to use his 4.0 packages? Does Branden force you to do *anything*? So I shouldn't trust packages from debian X team? I should install everything from source, and I should read every line of code. I put *trust in them. I didn't think I would have to check for a widget install ( gtk ) to render my new agp card unusable for the next few days. Ok. I think I get where this is headed. Instead of running ``apt-get upgrade'', run ``apt-get -u upgrade''. It will show you what will be upgraded. It sounds as if you knew many months ago that 4.0.x would break support for your currently installed DRI, and it sounds as if you were taken completely off-guard by its installation when you tried to install a new widget set. Using -u with apt would prevent this from happening. (I don't know why it isn't the default, but hey, I don't mind the extra three characters. :) I expressed concern about cutting out utah users before, and until DRI matures I can't see how you can defend the decision to weed it out. The thing is, no one is weeding anything out. Users can still run 3.3.x. cheers, Terry Cheers :) -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.''
Re: quick fix for building nvidia xfree4 drivers on kernel 2.4.0-test11
but im fairly new to this so editing the complier flags would be a bit too much for me (now) If you're not familiar with Makefiles (yet ;), you can put the line: #define KERNEL_2_3 into the first line of your nv.h, this does the same. I set up a page with how to get to nvidia drivers for 2.4.0-testxx kernels http://russe.dhs.org/nvidia.html I personally don't think NVidia will have support for 2.4 kernels soon, but please check if there are newer driver versions Raphael Make this world a better place and support free software!
Re: [harri@synopsys.COM: gdm and kdm can't start X]
Hi Harald, you need to reconfigure the pkg xserver-common do an dpkg-reconfigure xserver-common and select 'anybody'. This did the job for me. Be aware, it means anybody can start the xserver! Marcus On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 07:50:54PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote: Would the /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config file affect gdm or kdm? * Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001211 19:46]: Not sure what the problem is here; I don't know what would make the X server become a zombie process. - Forwarded message from Harald Dunkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Harald Dunkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: gdm and kdm can't start X Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:30:59 +0100 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.0-test11 i586) X-Accept-Language: en Hi Branden After the last update of XFree 4.0.1 gdm and kdm stopped working. The XServer doesn't come up. 'ps -ef' shows me '[ X defunct ]'. Is this an installation problem? Regards Harri -- Harald Dunkel | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Against stupidity the very gods Synopsys GmbH | Kaiserstr. 100 | Themselves contend in vain. 52134 Herzogenrath, Germany | +49 2407 9558 (fax? 44: 0) | Schiller, The Maid of Orleans - End forwarded message - -- G. Branden Robinson|Men use thought only to justify their Debian GNU/Linux |wrong doings, and speech only to conceal [EMAIL PROTECTED] |their thoughts. http://deadbeast.net/~branden/ |-- Voltaire -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.informatik.fh-muenchen.de/~ifw98070
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
Hi all, Why have you made the upgrade path in X impossible? You can't run utah on 4.0 - yet you blindly install 4.0 over every system by dependcies. You don't even bother checking /proc to see what card is installed. A simple grep of /proc/pci shows I have an AGP G400, not a V3! I have a machine that has half 3.3.6-18 and 4.0 installed now - and I had the utah package installed! You should check for utah before 'upgrading' blindly over it. I told you people not to do this - 3d accel is very important - you shouldn't dissmiss it outright. shouldn't DRI work with a G400 [normal, MAX] right out of the box with the latest 2.2.1x and latest 2.4.0-testx ? At least for me in XF86COnfig with a G400 and 2.4.0-test12-pre8 it seems to be enabled (through looking in the /var/log/XF*.log). So it seems that you just upgrade to the latest kernel, activate AGP Gart in the kernel and the corresponding G400 and you are set. Greetings Michael
Re: [kteague@sprocket.ddts.net: xserver-xsun drivers]
www.xfree86.org doesn't seem to say anything at all about Sun drivers. On a vaguely related note, is there a way other than gpm to get sunmouse support under X4?
Re: [kteague@sprocket.ddts.net: xserver-xsun drivers]
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: www.xfree86.org doesn't seem to say anything at all about Sun drivers. On a vaguely related note, is there a way other than gpm to get sunmouse support under X4? I use: Section InputDevice Identifier Mouse0 Driver mouse Option Protocol busmouse Option Device /dev/mouse EndSection with /dev/mouse being a link to /dev/sunmouse. It works very well. At least with a 2.4.0-test11 kernel, don't know if the mouse protocol for sparc has changed in newer kernels. Tomas
Re: [kteague@sprocket.ddts.net: xserver-xsun drivers]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 09:02:07AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: www.xfree86.org doesn't seem to say anything at all about Sun drivers. On a vaguely related note, is there a way other than gpm to get sunmouse support under X4? Other way? It's rather simple. Setup gpm to repeat as msc and set X up to use type MouseSystems on device /etc/gpmdata. Works perfectly for me. -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
xfree86 (4.0.1-11)
Hi,
the changelog says:
* updated MANIFEST.{i386,sparc,powerpc}
so it was not updated for m68k? :-(
Christian
Re: Tracking XFree86 CVS on a Potato system
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:49:49PM +0100, Charl P. Botha wrote: I don't track him that quickly... on average I build every 2nd or 3d release that he makes. I'm planning a potato build of 4.0.1-11 as soon as that's in woody for a day or two. Please wait for -12. -11 has some aggravating bugs in the packaging (debconf stuff). -- G. Branden Robinson |Any man who does not realize that he is Debian GNU/Linux|half an animal is only half a man. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Thornton Wilder http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpvnVOOeTVCT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: xfree86 (4.0.1-11)
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:20:57AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
Hi,
the changelog says:
* updated MANIFEST.{i386,sparc,powerpc}
so it was not updated for m68k? :-(
I don't have an m68k box of my own to build on. When the upstream version
changes (as I note in my changelog entries with the new alphas), I cannot
be sure what new files are going to exist on a given architecture without
compiling the tree.
When I introduce new Debian-specific files, like dexconf, I know what
arches they will show up on and I edit the MANIFEST files directly.
Arches I don't have direct access to will likely lag a Debian version when
the upstream version changes.
Also, Christian, feel free to build 4.0.1-11 so you can send me new *.m68k
files, but don't upload it; wait for 4.0.1-12.
4.0.1-12 will contain only Debian-specific revisions (bugfixes).
--
G. Branden Robinson |The errors of great men are venerable
Debian GNU/Linux|because they are more fruitful than the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |truths of little men.
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Friedrich Nietzsche
pgpP7rKmlYaMJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [harri@synopsys.COM: gdm and kdm can't start X]
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:49:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Not sure what the problem is here; I don't know what would make the X server become a zombie process. Actually, I do know. There was a bug in the X server wrapper. It's fixed in 4.0.1-11. -- G. Branden Robinson | Men use thought only to justify their Debian GNU/Linux| wrong doings, and speech only to conceal [EMAIL PROTECTED] | their thoughts. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Voltaire pgpZ6tf0ZDkwc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: xfree86 (4.0.1-11)
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 09:45:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:20:57AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
Hi,
the changelog says:
* updated MANIFEST.{i386,sparc,powerpc}
so it was not updated for m68k? :-(
I don't have an m68k box of my own to build on. When the upstream version
I know (though you could build on kullervo, Roman successfully built -10
debs there when he did not watch what the daemon was doing).
changes (as I note in my changelog entries with the new alphas), I cannot
be sure what new files are going to exist on a given architecture without
compiling the tree.
Thats why I have been compiling the pre versions and said on:
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:18:45 +0100
Subject: Re: the continuing adventures of XFree86 4.0.1
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 04:11:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Please wait until you see source for 10pre11v2. There's no point wasting
your time building v1 since I'm committing some fairly important bug fixes.
MANIFEST.m68k for this version is on http://people.debian.org/~cts/x4.0/
Was that too late? Or did I miss something else?
Also, Christian, feel free to build 4.0.1-11 so you can send me new *.m68k
files, but don't upload it; wait for 4.0.1-12.
If I have to send you a new MANIFEST, the build will not complete. Also, I
will not upload it, since it will not work, at least not on my machine. It
seems nobody elsed cared to test the m68k debs I put on my X page so I must
believe its not working on any m68k machine.
Christian
--
http://people.debian.org/~cts/
Re: xfree86 (4.0.1-11)
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote: 4.0.1-12 will contain only Debian-specific revisions (bugfixes). I'm preparing an Alpha patch for -11 (and I guess -12) now. I'm test compiling now and will probably have the final patch later today. Will this be in time for -12? C
Re: xfree86 (4.0.1-11)
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:59:17AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote: MANIFEST.m68k for this version is on http://people.debian.org/~cts/x4.0/ Was that too late? Or did I miss something else? I forgot you told me this. In the future, please tar up your *.m68k files, compress the tarball, and file a bug report with important severity so I can't miss it. Yes, this is one of the few things I give people permission to file release-critical bugs against for. :) Also, Christian, feel free to build 4.0.1-11 so you can send me new *.m68k files, but don't upload it; wait for 4.0.1-12. If I have to send you a new MANIFEST, the build will not complete. But if you do what I suggest in debian/README, you *can* complete the build and test the packages, even if they must be unofficial. 1) cp debian/MANIFEST.m68k.new debian/MANIFEST.m68k 2) fakeroot debian/rules install FORCE=1 3) fakeroot debian/rules binary The binary rule may fail, too, if you get some of the debhelper .m68k files wrong. If it does, fix them and repeat steps 2 and 3. -- G. Branden Robinson |Never underestimate the power of human Debian GNU/Linux|stupidity. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpT3ggeeQbub.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Tracking XFree86 CVS on a Potato system
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 09:37:24AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:49:49PM +0100, Charl P. Botha wrote: I don't track him that quickly... on average I build every 2nd or 3d release that he makes. I'm planning a potato build of 4.0.1-11 as soon as that's in woody for a day or two. Please wait for -12. -11 has some aggravating bugs in the packaging (debconf stuff). Thanks for the tip, I'll wait for -12. BTW, your later packages (-8 onwards) are really super; they build on potato without any twiddling. BTW2, I am subscribed to this list. :) -- charl p. botha | computer graphics and cad/cam http://cpbotha.net/ | http://www.cg.its.tudelft.nl/
4.0.1-11 breaks text and images on SiS 86C326
Hello all, I have been using the new X server packages, and have been quite happy, up through 4.0.1-10. However, when I ran gdm after installing 4.0.1-11, the image was missing - it was replaced in fact by a bit of a dilbert comic that I had been looking at when running 4.0.1-10. Also, no text was drawn. However, new windows could be created, and the background color and the color of regions could be set. e.g., knowing what SHOULD appear on various menus, I was able to log in and log out. Does anybody know a simple fix for this, or should I wait for upstream to fix it? -BenRI -- q
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
From: Joshua Shagam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey Bruce, are you really such a newbie that you can't read the list archives? ;) Well, you read the archives with a web browser, and my web browser happens to run under the x server that I'm not authorized to run right now. You want me to use LYNX Eeewww! Actually, I read the archives about a week ago when this first popped up, and didn't find the answer. So, for the moment, I made XFree86 setuid-root and started it by hand, and then started the window manager and the panel. But since I'm demonstrating this system to two vice-presidents of HP in the near future, and I'm writing an article for ZDNet on why Free Software is so cool today, you folks could be nice and save me some searching. Thanks Bruce
Re: Is it possible to disable the mouse cursor?
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 04:52:34PM +, Cajus Pollmeier wrote:
Hi!
Me again, asking some nerving questions ;-)
Since the system I'm trying to set up is equipped with a touchscreen, a
mousepointer makes no sence, too.
I tried to disable it via xsetroot -cursor path_to_empty_bitmap path_to_mask
but this works only for the X background. Placing the mouse cursor above
another application, it is set by this to whatever cursor.
Is there a better possibility?
Maybe look at unclutter.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED],havoc,gaeshido}.fi,{debian,wanderer}.org,stonesoft.com}
unix, linux, debian, networks, security, | Chaos reigns within.
kernel, TCP/IP, C, perl, free software, | Reflect, repent, and reboot.
mail, www, sw devel, unix admin, hacks. | Order shall return.
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 11:45:10AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: From: Joshua Shagam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey Bruce, are you really such a newbie that you can't read the list archives? ;) Well, you read the archives with a web browser, and my web browser happens to run under the x server that I'm not authorized to run right now. You want me to use LYNX Eeewww! That's what w3m is for. :) Actually, I read the archives about a week ago when this first popped up, and didn't find the answer. When I had these problems (I wasn't paying attention when it came up the first time) it took me a while to find the exact thread which answers it. You want to do dpkg --reconfigure xfree86-common. So, for the moment, I made XFree86 setuid-root and started it by hand, and then started the window manager and the panel. But since I'm demonstrating this system to two vice-presidents of HP in the near future, and I'm writing an article for ZDNet on why Free Software is so cool today, you folks could be nice and save me some searching. ZDNet? Wow, good thing I don't read Slashdot anymore, or I'd have to consider flaming you for that. :) -- Joshua Shagam /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / No HTML/RTF in email www.cs.nmsu.edu/~joshagam X No Word docs in email mp3.com/fluffyporcupine/ \ Respect for open standards
Re: Utah GLX
* Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001212 01:32]: The thing is, no one is weeding anything out. Users can still run 3.3.x. You can't install 3.3.6-18 anymore, so I think it is cutting users out. Perhaps it is cutting out users who join the project with woody's original release. You don't fall into this category. You *can* install 3.3.6-11potato18 though, which is probably pretty damn close to the 3.3.6-18 you miss so much. Games like tribes 2 won't be running on DRI, what will you thin debian users will say to that? I never liked how debian maintainers assume certian packages that can no longer be obtianed exist on a users system. Eh? Hmm. Maybe you forgot a 'not' somewhere in this sentence. Could you please rephrase that, and more directly apply it to your case of not putting the 3.3.6 packages on hold? I'm going to have to reinstall X and all my X dep apps tomarrow, and I hate knowing even after expressing concern agian on the issue of utah - I've wasted 2 days fixing it, yet I'm going to have to manually alter my status database to lock out debian X anyway. Oh man, I remember when I had a slow internet connection. Thank god for ATT and their cable connections! :) Downloading the new X packages takes only a few minutes, and I imagine the old X packages would download just as quickly for me. All the best to you and your poor modem. :) -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.''
It got better
Rafal's instructions did the trick. Thanks! Bruce
ssh -- X11 forwarding with new server-xfree86
Dear all, I updated my woody box yesterday to the newest server for XFree86 4.0. Since then, I cannot remotely start any tools that have to connect to the X-Client. The error message _X11TransSocketINETConnect: Can't connect: errno = 111 Error: Can't open display: 10.0.1.4:0.0 [1]Exit 1communicator appears even I run xhost + or I explicitely allowed the X server to connect. Does anyone know where I can fix the problem? Thanks in advance for any help. Kind regards, Lukas
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 12:47:29PM -0700, Joshua Shagam wrote: Actually, I read the archives about a week ago when this first popped up, and didn't find the answer. When I had these problems (I wasn't paying attention when it came up the first time) it took me a while to find the exact thread which answers it. You want to do dpkg --reconfigure xfree86-common. That's dpkg-reconfigure, actually... Dan /\ /\ | Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 | | Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \/ \/
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 11:45:10AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: From: Joshua Shagam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey Bruce, are you really such a newbie that you can't read the list archives? ;) Well, you read the archives with a web browser, and my web browser happens to run under the x server that I'm not authorized to run right now. You want me to use LYNX Eeewww! Actually, I read the archives about a week ago when this first popped up, and didn't find the answer. So, for the moment, I made XFree86 setuid-root and started it by hand, and then started the window manager and the panel. But since I'm demonstrating this system to two vice-presidents of HP in the near future, and I'm writing an article for ZDNet on why Free Software is so cool today, you folks could be nice and save me some searching. The selection has moved from /etc/X11/Xserver to /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config Edit that file, and all will be well. -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
Seth Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Terry, a few quick comments -- first, Utah-glx is in the past. While their work may have been nifty at one point, and for people running 3.3.x perhaps necessary, XF 4.0.1 has a *much* easier GL system. Grmpf! Do you know what DRI currently supports vs what Utah currently supports in terms of hardware and/or features? I din't think so. DRI's implementation is orders of magnitude cleaner and it *is* a better option for some people (most of the people, probably), but brushing Utah as a thing in the past is, at best, cluelessness. If *you* had trouble setting up Utah drivers it doesn't mean that *everyone* will have them. -- Marcelo
Re: ssh -- X11 forwarding with new server-xfree86
Lukas, I think there are several things going on at once. xhost allows individual hosts to connect to X -- by default, X doesn't listen to tcp sockets (the -nolisten tcp bit in one of the /etc/X11/ files) so remote hosts will not be able to connect, with or without xhost authorization. Also, ssh does the tunnelling for you -- if you manually set DISPLAY on the other machine, which may be done in a shell script someplace :), then you do not get the benefit of ssh's tunnelling. Also, I would hope ssh could dump the local end of the pipe to X through unix domain sockets, for the slight speed help -- but if it requires using tcp to talk to the local server (which wouldn't surprise me at all), then you need to remove the -nolisten tcp bit. The fact that it complains about not opening the 10.0.1.4:0.0 display says to me that the DISPLAY environment variable is set someplace. Note also that Debian ships ssh in such a fashion that X forwarding doens't take place automatically -- you must edit files in /etc/ssh/ to fix this. (This is to prevent problems mentioned on [EMAIL PROTECTED]) HTH * Lukas Ruf [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001212 13:45]: Dear all, I updated my woody box yesterday to the newest server for XFree86 4.0. Since then, I cannot remotely start any tools that have to connect to the X-Client. The error message _X11TransSocketINETConnect: Can't connect: errno = 111 Error: Can't open display: 10.0.1.4:0.0 [1]Exit 1communicator appears even I run xhost + or I explicitely allowed the X server to connect. Does anyone know where I can fix the problem? Thanks in advance for any help. Kind regards, Lukas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.''
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: pissed off. An overnight upgrade of gtk shouldn't break my x server. As the gtkglarea maintainer (and since you hinted it's the OpenGL subsystem what broke) I feel this is somehow my fault... could you please elaborate on this? -- Marcelo
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 04:20:30PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 12:47:29PM -0700, Joshua Shagam wrote: Actually, I read the archives about a week ago when this first popped up, and didn't find the answer. When I had these problems (I wasn't paying attention when it came up the first time) it took me a while to find the exact thread which answers it. You want to do dpkg --reconfigure xfree86-common. That's dpkg-reconfigure, actually... Oops. My bad. :) -- Joshua Shagam /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / No HTML/RTF in email www.cs.nmsu.edu/~joshagam X No Word docs in email mp3.com/fluffyporcupine/ \ Respect for open standards
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
* Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001212 14:40]: DRI's implementation is orders of magnitude cleaner and it *is* a better option for some people (most of the people, probably), but brushing Utah as a thing in the past is, at best, cluelessness. If *you* had trouble setting up Utah drivers it doesn't mean that *everyone* will have them. Well, I am at least partially correct in the sense that Utah-GLX does not work with 4.0.1. It only works with versions of 3.3.x; a version most decidedly much older than 4.0.1. That is my definition of 'past' -- something that once upon a time worked, but does not work any longer. Under this definition, the transparent cryptographic filesystem is in the past -- it worked with Linux kernel 2.0, but not newer releases. It might have been very good, and served the needs of its users well. It still provides functionality that hasn't been supplied by other packages. But it too is in the past, because it requires an older version of software than most people want to run. It seems clear to me that Utah-GLX fits this definition nicely. (Otherwise, Terry wouldn't be pissed right now. :) Whether it is better or worse, I am not prepared to make this sort of value judgement. -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.''
[branden@deadbeast.net: [ernst_sonnleitner@freenet.de: xdm don't run his start script with german settings (LANG=de_DE)]]
Ernst, I *think* the end problem is, XF86 uses a different set of locale names than FSF's glibc uses. I don't know the answer. Branden and (ben?) have exchanged a few emails in debian-x about possible solutions/sources of the problem. The debian-x archives may be interesting reading. Until something is figured out (or someone reminds me of what the fix was, if there is a fix already :) I would suggest setting your locale information on a per-process basis. - Forwarded message from Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivery-date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:08:41 -0800 Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:06:21 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:46:12 -0500 To: debian-x@lists.debian.org Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: xdm don't run his start script with german settings (LANG=de_DE)] Mail-Followup-To: debian-x@lists.debian.org User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) Resent-Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-From: debian-x@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: debian-x@lists.debian.org archive/latest/1991 X-Loop: debian-x@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Bcc: - Forwarded message from Ernst Sonnleitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Ernst Sonnleitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: xdm don't run his start script with german settings (LANG=de_DE) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:33:28 +0100 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:31:48PM -0500 Organization: nobody is perfect Hello If I don't set locale xdm work well - login with user/password -my windowsmanager starts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ locale LANG=POSIX LC_CTYPE=POSIX LC_NUMERIC=POSIX LC_TIME=POSIX LC_COLLATE=POSIX LC_MONETARY=POSIX LC_MESSAGES=POSIX LC_PAPER=POSIX LC_NAME=POSIX LC_ADDRESS=POSIX LC_TELEPHONE=POSIX LC_MEASUREMENT=POSIX LC_IDENTIFICATION=POSIX - If I set my locale with /etc/language-de #!/bin/sh # $Id: language-de,v 1.4 1998/02/20 18:34:36 leutloff Exp $ # settings for german speaking users set LANG LANG=de_DE export LANG and activates it with /etc/X11/Xsession: if [ -f /etc/language-de ]; then source /etc/language-de; fi /etc/profile: if [ -f /etc/language-de ]; then source /etc/language-de; fi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ locale LANG=de_DE LC_CTYPE=de_DE LC_NUMERIC=de_DE LC_TIME=de_DE LC_COLLATE=de_DE LC_MONETARY=de_DE LC_MESSAGES=de_DE LC_PAPER=de_DE LC_NAME=de_DE LC_ADDRESS=de_DE LC_TELEPHONE=de_DE LC_MEASUREMENT=de_DE LC_IDENTIFICATION=de_DE LC_ALL= xdm started but after the loginscreen, after user/password return there is only one xterm open, no windowmanager started. I have read about that as the emergency screen, normaly touched with user/password F1 with the possibility to repair a bad start script. Regards Ernst - End forwarded message - -- G. Branden Robinson| The basic test of freedom is perhaps Debian GNU/Linux | less in what we are free to do than in [EMAIL PROTECTED] | what we are free not to do. http://deadbeast.net/~branden/ | -- Eric Hoffer - End forwarded message - -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.''
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
Seth Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, I am at least partially correct in the sense that Utah-GLX does not work with 4.0.1. It only works with versions of 3.3.x; a version most decidedly much older than 4.0.1. That is my definition of 'past' -- something that once upon a time worked, but does not work any longer. Although a very convenient definition, it doesn't work either. The point in question is GL support. Noone is even *thinking* about getting Utah-GLX to work with 4.0 (that would be a major waste of effort), but right now there are people who would prefer to use Utah over GLX for a bunch of different reasons: to name one, DRI's resource management is different than Utah's, and Utah's has some advantages for some people. Whether it is better or worse, I am not prepared to make this sort of value judgement. What value judgement are you talking about? This is a (measurable) technical issue. -- Marcelo
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
* Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001212 16:39]: [...] and Utah's has some advantages for some people. And the one person who has seemed to be effected thus far did not take the time and effort to put his packages on hold. :-P Whether it is better or worse, I am not prepared to make this sort of value judgement. What value judgement are you talking about? This is a (measurable) technical issue. Oh no, *time* falls into the equation as well. Getting GL on 4.0.x is quite simple and fast -- recompile kernel to include AGPGART device and the video card kernel module. Load it and the agpgart modules. Have the following Loaded in the XF86Config file: GLcore, dbe, dri, glx. Compared against Utah, at least the last time I looked at it, this is really pretty quick and easy. Whether or not the features supported by Utah are imporant enough to justify the work involved with getting it to go is entirely dependent upon the applications one needs to run. For me, I never missed the features. For mongoose (terry?), he obviously misses the features of Utah, but not enough to ensure they wouldn't be overwritten. Yes, it is a value judgement, based entirely on measurable technical details. -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.''
Re: [mongoose@users.sourceforge.net: X upgrade policy]
Quoting Christopher C. Chimelis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
To end this long reply, I suggest this: compile your own Xserver and utah
and install it in /usr/local until things work out to the point where they
are usable again for your setup.
What I did was use the potato 3.3.6 xserver, because xserver-mach64
doesn't get built anymore, and repacked utah-glx without Conflicts:
xfree86-common(=4.0) line.
For some more fun, today I built xserver-mach64 from 3.3.6-18 sources,
with very little problems - added it back to
debian/{control,create-arch-xservers} and to debian/patches/000a*
(whatever it's called). Now I have a xserver-mach64_3.3.6-18, almost
like it still existed in distro. ;-)
Had to do that because there is no DRI for mach64 yet, and I like
those nifty gl screensavers, not to mention tuxracer.
One could file a bug to utah-glx package and request replacing of
Conflicts: xfree86-common(=4.0) with a dependency on
xserver-common-v3, or maybe on any of those xserver packages utah-glx
works with. That would deal with the removal of utah-glx on upgrade.
Zoran
--
menage a trois, n.:
Using both hands to masturbate.
Re: 4.0.1-11 breaks text and images on SiS 86C326
Very interestingly, I experience a similar problem under the 4.0.1 X server with the game X Scavenger (xscavenger). When Scavenger first starts up, the outer borders of the window are leftover bits of comics that I've been looking at. When I start the game, though, the screen is cleared and everything goes to normal. This is a bit different than my problem: ALL my applications fail at ALL points. (OK, actually I guess the applications that fail are: icewm, GNOME, gdm, and gnome-terminal). For some reason, the arrow on the menus in icewm still work, though no text is shown. YOUR problem may be that you have not added the line VideoRAM 4096 to you card specification? If X tries to use all 8 megs, then screen redraws become somewhat untrustworthy. X 3.3.x automagically only used 4M on 8M cards, but on 4.0.1 you have to do this manually it seems. I also use a SiS chipset, but it's the 6326 not the 86C326 (or are they the same thing?). I'm not sure if this problem is chipset-specific, but I don't know for sure. This IS the same card I think: I got the model number from /proc/pci, I think it is also called a 6326. So, in summary, this is NOT a bug against gdm, but a bug in the xserver. -BenRI -- q
Re: Tracking XFree86 CVS on a Potato system
Dear Seth, Thank you very much for your advice. SA You can indeed build Branden's packages for potato, but Charl P. Botha SA has done this already! I am aware of Charl's packages. The issue is that I want to *litterally* track XFree86 CVS. I want to be able to say ``cvs diff'' when I'm working on XFree86. Unless someone has better ideas, then, I guess I'll install Charl's packages and then overwrite them with my own binaries (compiled from a checked out CVS source tree). SA But, if you are truly making this a development box, why not go SA all out, and run woody, what with its often updates to everything? It's a devel box, which is exactly why it needs to run a stable distribution :-) (When I see a bug in XFree86, I want to be fairly certain it's an XFree86 bug, not a but in some other package.) Regards, Juliusz
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 04:20:30PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 12:47:29PM -0700, Joshua Shagam wrote: When I had these problems (I wasn't paying attention when it came up the first time) it took me a while to find the exact thread which answers it. You want to do dpkg --reconfigure xfree86-common. That's dpkg-reconfigure, actually... dpkg-reconfigure xfree86-common doesn't seem to do anything for me. It runs, exits, and Xwrapper.config is exactly the same as it was before. Editing by hand does the job, of course... Drew -- PGP public key available at http://dparsons.webjump.com/drewskey.txt Fingerprint: A110 EAE1 D7D2 8076 5FE0 EC0A B6CE 7041 6412 4E4A
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
* Drew Parsons [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001212 18:18]: That's dpkg-reconfigure, actually... dpkg-reconfigure xfree86-common doesn't seem to do anything for me. It runs, exits, and Xwrapper.config is exactly the same as it was before. This would probably mean you set your debconf severity level to such a state that it doesn't bother asking you the question. Reconfigure debconf, and see if that changes matters. :) (And if you think Branden screwed up the priority of the question, be sure to let the list know. :) -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.''
Re: 4.0.1-11 breaks text and images on SiS 86C326
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 05:54:22PM -0800, Benjamin Redelings I wrote: Very interestingly, I experience a similar problem under the 4.0.1 X server with the game X Scavenger (xscavenger). When Scavenger first starts up, the outer borders of the window are leftover bits of comics that I've been looking at. When I start the game, though, the screen is cleared and everything goes to normal. This is a bit different than my problem: ALL my applications fail at ALL points. (OK, actually I guess the applications that fail are: icewm, GNOME, gdm, and gnome-terminal). For some reason, the arrow on the menus in icewm still work, though no text is shown. Weird. I just upgraded to -11 and when xdm starts, the login widget shows up as a blank box. Even weirder, switching to a text console and back suddenly brings the text back! (Except that it cleared the background to white in the process) Everything seems to work OK now, but earlier on, on my first attempt to restart X, the X server crashed after I logged in. YOUR problem may be that you have not added the line VideoRAM 4096 to you card specification? If X tries to use all 8 megs, then screen redraws become somewhat untrustworthy. X 3.3.x automagically only used 4M on 8M cards, but on 4.0.1 you have to do this manually it seems. No, my XF86Config-4 explicitly states VideoRam 4096, and I'm still getting the same problem with Scavenger. In fact, it still does the same thing right now, after that text-console-switching weirdness I just described. So, although your problem probably isn't caused by gdm, I suspect Scavenger has a bug (or perhaps library incompatibility?) [snip] This IS the same card I think: I got the model number from /proc/pci, I think it is also called a 6326. OK, I thought so... the numbers look too similar to be a coincidence anyway :-) So, in summary, this is NOT a bug against gdm, but a bug in the xserver. [snip] Hmm. Might it have anything to do with what I described? Sounds like we're experiencing the same problem. Try switching to a text VC and back, and see if that helps. It worked for me (tm), YMMV. T -- Winners never quit, quitters never win. But those who never quit AND never win are idiots. pgpVTajka01BJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
Actually, I even filed a bug on this. I did the investigation and found the answer myself, dpkg-reconfigure xserver-common... However, my issue is not HOW to fix it, but rather after fixing it it does not stay fixed. Every upgrade requires me to again dpkg- reconfigure xserver-common. That was the thought behind my bug, maybe Branden doesn't quite realize what I meant. He said this is now the proper way to act for xserver. Maybe he isn't aware it needs to be reconfigured EVERY time? Gordon Sadler On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 06:21:17PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote: This would probably mean you set your debconf severity level to such a state that it doesn't bother asking you the question. Reconfigure debconf, and see if that changes matters. :) (And if you think Branden screwed up the priority of the question, be sure to let the list know. :)
Re: [bruce@perens.com: user not authorized to run the X server]
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 06:21:17PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote: * Drew Parsons [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001212 18:18]: That's dpkg-reconfigure, actually... dpkg-reconfigure xfree86-common doesn't seem to do anything for me. It runs, exits, and Xwrapper.config is exactly the same as it was before. This would probably mean you set your debconf severity level to such a state that it doesn't bother asking you the question. Reconfigure debconf, and see if that changes matters. :) (And if you think Branden screwed up the priority of the question, be sure to let the list know. :) I found the problem. It's not done in xfree86-common, it's done by xserver-common! It's asking me the right questions now :) Incidentally, the /etc/X11/Xwrapper.config is not found by dpkg -S, which is technically fine, since, as I understand it, the file isn't in the package, it's only generated dynamically by it. But it might have been helpful for it to be listed, so that I could have verified earlier which package it is in. Are there reasonable grounds for the file to be explicitly placed in the X source, so it's registered as belonging? Or, more ambitiously, should debconf (or whatever is generating the file) be able to add the new file to the database of registered files when desired? Drew -- PGP public key available at http://dparsons.webjump.com/drewskey.txt Fingerprint: A110 EAE1 D7D2 8076 5FE0 EC0A B6CE 7041 6412 4E4A
