Bug#546538: Processed: Re: Bug#546538: warzone2100: 546538: probably a driver/KMS issue
This one time, at band camp, Stephen Gran said: > This one time, at band camp, Brice Goglin said: > > Does disabling KMS indeed help? > > No, it seems not. I just booted 2.6.31 and debian 2.6.30-1-amd64 > without KMS disabled, and no better. Er, with KMS disabled, obviously. Sorry about that. -- - | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#546538: Processed: Re: Bug#546538: warzone2100: 546538: probably a driver/KMS issue
This one time, at band camp, Brice Goglin said: > Does disabling KMS indeed help? No, it seems not. I just booted 2.6.31 and debian 2.6.30-1-amd64 without KMS disabled, and no better. Cheers, -- - | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#546538: Processed: Re: Bug#546538: warzone2100: 546538: probably a driver/KMS issue
This one time, at band camp, Brice Goglin said: > Does disabling KMS indeed help? I'll try when I get back to the machine tonight (bit difficult to tell remotely :) ) Cheers, -- - | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#546538: warzone2100: 546538: probably a driver/KMS issue
reassign 546538 xserver-xorg-video-intel affects 546538 +warzone2100 thanks This one time, at band camp, Paul Wise said: > This is very likely to be a bug in the newer version of your driver, the > kernel or mesa. Please reassign it to the appropriate xserver-xorg-video > package and set the affects to warzone2100. > > I imagine a debugging session in #debian-x or the appropriate upstream > IRC channel will be needed to figure this issue out. > > It would be very much worth installing some other OpenGL games/packages > and trying them to see if any others have the same issue. I tried extreme tux racer, it works without any problems, which is why I thought I'd file the bug on warzone2100 instead of the driver. > Here is a bug that looks similar that might have hints about what > workarounds might be available: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/warzone2100/+bug/374531 > > The obvious workaround to try would be to disable KMS and downgrade to > testing instead of unstable, IIRC the X stack hasn't migrated to testing > since before lenny was released. That launchpad bug is indeed relevant - it's almost exactly the symptoms I'm seeing, and the same video card. I'll reassign this over to the video-intel driver. Cheers, -- --------- | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#452167: closed by Julien Cristau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Bug#451989: fixed in xorg-server 2:1.4.1~git20071212-2)
This one time, at band camp, Wolf Wiegand said: > Hi, > > Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > > This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report > > which was filed against the xserver-xorg-core package: > > > > #452167: Xorg hangs shortly after the window manager starts > > > > It has been closed by Julien Cristau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > Thanks - with the new version, the problem is gone. The lockup is gone for me as well, but it looks like it may have revealed the underlying problem. I now occasionally get an infinite loop of 'focus event' 'unfocus event'. I don't know if you want a seperate bug report for this, though. Thanks, -- --------- | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#429609: root-tail problems with xserver-xorg-core 1.3
reassign #429609 xserver-xorg-video-nv thanks This one time, at band camp, Leandro Lisboa Penz said: > After the following downgrade it started to work again: > [DOWNGRADE] xserver-xorg 1:7.2-5 -> 1:7.1.0-16 > [DOWNGRADE] xserver-xorg-core 2:1.3.0.0.dfsg-6 -> 2:1.1.1-21 > [DOWNGRADE] xserver-xorg-input-evdev 1:1.1.5-2 -> 1:1.1.2-6 > [DOWNGRADE] xserver-xorg-input-mouse 1:1.2.1-1 -> 1:1.1.1-3 > [DOWNGRADE] xserver-xorg-video-nv 1:2.1.0-1 -> 1:1.2.0-3 Since root-tail hasn't changed in forever, I suggest that this is probably something broken in the x libraries or the video driver. I'm guessing the video driver, so I'm reassigning it there. If it turns out to be a bad guess, feel free to reassign back or ask for help. Take care, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#423416: xserver-xorg-video-intel: 128MB not enough for DRI?
This one time, at band camp, Julien Cristau said: > Hi Stephen, Hi, > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 18:27:57 +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: > > > I know this is a duplicate of information below, but: > > > > (II) intel(0): I830CheckAvailableMemory: 955388 kB available > > (==) intel(0): VideoRam: 131072 KB > > [...] > > (WW) intel(0): Failed to allocate texture space. > > (WW) intel(0): Not enough video memory. Disabling DRI. > > > > DRI worked with this configuration up until this upgrade. I have tried > > switching to EXA to see if that helps, but unfortunately, I get a very > > blurry picture that is unusable, and so I've gone back to XAA. > > > This looks similar to the upstream bug referenced above, which has a > workaround for this issue. That gets DRI going again, thanks. I don't mind if you want to close the bug, or leave it open until the scanline detection is working better, or some other plan - I'll leave it up to you. From my point of view, I'm happy it's working again, but I feel that it probably does mean there is some misdetection going on. Thanks again, -- --------- | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#368778: x11-common: postinst brainfart
Package: x11-common Version: 1:7.0.20 Severity: normal postinst snippet: # # Automatically added by dh_installinit if [ -x "/etc/init.d/x11-common" ]; then update-rc.d x11-common start 70 S . >/dev/null if [ -x "`which invoke-rc.d 2>/dev/null`" ]; then invoke-rc.d x11-common start || exit $? else /etc/init.d/x11-common start || exit $? fi fi # End automatically added section # Automatically added by dh_installinit if [ -x "/etc/init.d/x11-common" ]; then update-rc.d x11-common defaults >/dev/null if [ -x "`which invoke-rc.d 2>/dev/null`" ]; then invoke-rc.d x11-common start || exit $? else /etc/init.d/x11-common start || exit $? fi fi # End automatically added section invoke-rc.d x11-common start || true # er, say what? -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-1-686-smp Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_US.UTF8) Versions of packages x11-common depends on: ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.1 Debian configuration management sy ii debianutils 2.16.1 Miscellaneous utilities specific t ii lsb-base 3.1-5 Linux Standard Base 3.1 init scrip x11-common recommends no packages. -- debconf information: * x11-common/xwrapper/allowed_users: Console Users Only x11-common/experimental_packages: x11-common/xwrapper/actual_allowed_users: console x11-common/xwrapper/nice_value/error: x11-common/upgrade_issues: * x11-common/xwrapper/nice_value: -10 x11-common/x11r6_bin_not_empty: -- ----- | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#362891: xserver-xorg: post-installation script fails during install
This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said: > - (to the maintainers) is there anything new in the templates that could > cause a parse failure? Here is what I see after much beating to get sensible sh -x output: + which discover ++ discover_video ++ which discover +++ discover --disable-all --enable=pci '--format=%V %M\t%S\t%D\n' video ++ DISCOVERED_VIDEO='usage: discover [--bus-summary] [OPTIONS] [BUS [...]] discover --type-summary [OPTIONS] [TYPE [...]] discover --data-path=PATH [--data-version=VERSION] [TYPE | ID] [...] discover --version discover --help' + DISCOVERED_VIDEO= and so: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo discover --disable-all --enable=pci --format="%V %M\t%S\t%D\n" video discover: unrecognized option `--disable-all' usage: discover [--bus-summary] [OPTIONS] [BUS [...]] discover --type-summary [OPTIONS] [TYPE [...]] discover --data-path=PATH [--data-version=VERSION] [TYPE | ID] [...] discover --version discover --help [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ echo $? 64 Did discover change behavior recently? This needs an eval or something to not exit in the middle of the script, as discover is more of a nicety than a requirement, but for the meantime, making the script call discover with the right arguments is probably the easiest way forward. -- - | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#362891: xserver-xorg: post-installation script fails during install
This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 01:15:03AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: > > > I just ran across this and tried that - it dies right after sourcing the > > debconf confmodule - debconf's exec line to restart the scripts exit's > > 64. > > Thanks, that's pretty much what I expected, though I have no idea why it's > happening. :/ > > Couple of wild guesses: > > - is your system configured to use cdebconf? No - /usr/share/debconf/frontend is invoked. > - what do you have as /bin/sh? /bin/bash Except for potentially vast amounts of cruft dating back to slink or potato, this machine shouldn't have too much unusual about it. It's odd that a reasonably fresh install on another machine does not fail here, though, so I will dig a bit and see what I can find. -- ----- | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#362940: Latest update broke gdm and can't find default fixed font
This one time, at band camp, Stephen Gran said: > This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said: > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 06:14:33PM +0200, Riccardo Magliocchetti wrote: > > > Package: xserver-xorg > > > Version: 1:7.0.12 > > > Severity: grave > > > Justification: renders package unusable > > > > > upgrading to xorg-xserver version 7.0.12 broke my system. GDM complains > > > because it cannot find xserver executable: > > > > > GDM: Xserver not found: /usr/X11R6/bin/X ... > > > ERROR: Command cannot be executed > > > > This should not be possible. Your reportbug template claims that you have > > x11-common 1:7.0.12 installed, but this package provides both /usr/bin/X, > > and /usr/X11R6/bin as a symlink to /usr/bin. > > > > Please provide the output of these commands: > > > > $ ls -ld /usr/X11R6/bin /usr/X11R6/bin/X /usr/bin/X > > $ dpkg -l x11-common > > This is possible if you have xearth installed - it sits in > /usr/X11R6/bin/X, and the upgrade path doesn't install the symlink, Er, that should have been /usr/X11R6/bin, obviously. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#362940: Latest update broke gdm and can't find default fixed font
This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said: > On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 06:14:33PM +0200, Riccardo Magliocchetti wrote: > > Package: xserver-xorg > > Version: 1:7.0.12 > > Severity: grave > > Justification: renders package unusable > > > upgrading to xorg-xserver version 7.0.12 broke my system. GDM complains > > because it cannot find xserver executable: > > > GDM: Xserver not found: /usr/X11R6/bin/X ... > > ERROR: Command cannot be executed > > This should not be possible. Your reportbug template claims that you have > x11-common 1:7.0.12 installed, but this package provides both /usr/bin/X, > and /usr/X11R6/bin as a symlink to /usr/bin. > > Please provide the output of these commands: > > $ ls -ld /usr/X11R6/bin /usr/X11R6/bin/X /usr/bin/X > $ dpkg -l x11-common This is possible if you have xearth installed - it sits in /usr/X11R6/bin/X, and the upgrade path doesn't install the symlink, leaving you without a working /usr/X11R6/bin/X for gdm. Uninstalling xearth and redoing the upgrade fixed it here. -- --------- | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#362891: xserver-xorg: post-installation script fails during install
This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said: > On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 11:26:40AM +0200, Daniele Venzano wrote: > > Package xserver-xorg fails to install on my system with the following > > messages: > > > Setting up xserver-xorg (7.0.12) ... > > dpkg: error processing xserver-xorg (--configure): > > subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 64 > > dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of xorg: > > xorg depends on xserver-xorg; however: > > Package xserver-xorg is not configured yet. > > dpkg: error processing xorg (--configure): > > dependency problems - leaving unconfigured > > Errors were encountered while processing: > > xserver-xorg > > xorg > > Can you edit /var/lib/dpkg/info/xserver-xorg.postinst to change the first > line to read "#!/bin/sh -x" and then run dpkg --configure --pending, and > post the output? This should give us a clear indication of what's failing. I just ran across this and tried that - it dies right after sourcing the debconf confmodule - debconf's exec line to restart the scripts exit's 64. Commenting out the sourceing of confmodule lets the script run to completion, although that is clearly not a general solution. -- ----- | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#362859: /var/lib/dpkg/info/x11-common.postinst: line 918: [: too many arguments
Package: x11-common Version: 1:7.0.12 Severity: normal Tags: patch I think this is what you were looking for. --- debian/x11-common.postinst.in.old 2006-04-16 01:25:57.0 +0100 +++ debian/x11-common.postinst.in 2006-04-16 01:29:01.0 +0100 @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ fi fi -if [ ! -L -e -d "/usr/X11R6/bin" ]; then +if [ ! -L "/usr/X11R6/bin" ] && [ -e "/usr/X11R6/bin" ] && [ -d "/usr/X11R6/bin" ] ; then rmdir "/usr/X11R6/bin" || die "Could not remove /usr/X11R6/bin. Is not yet empty. Please remove any items still in the directory. You can move them back after the install has completed successfully." fi if ! [ -e "/usr/X11R6/bin" ]; then Take care, -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-1-686 Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_US.UTF8) Versions of packages x11-common depends on: ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.4.72 Debian configuration management sy ii debianutils 2.15.5 Miscellaneous utilities specific t ii laptop-detect 0.12.1 attempt to detect a laptop ii lsb-base 3.1-3 Linux Standard Base 3.1 init scrip x11-common recommends no packages. -- debconf information: * x11-common/xwrapper/nice_value: -10 * x11-common/xwrapper/allowed_users: Console Users Only x11-common/experimental_packages: x11-common/xwrapper/actual_allowed_users: console x11-common/xwrapper/nice_value/error: -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#345387: tries to overweite stuff in xlibs; missing Replaces:?
This one time, at band camp, Kurt Roeckx said: > xlibs should get removed, so I think it should be a Conflicts. Surely nothing so drastic as removing xlibs is necessary for moving a file between packages? The versioned conflicts/replaces/etc magic is probably all that's necessary. -- - | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#345387: tries to overweite stuff in xlibs; missing Replaces:?
This one time, at band camp, Kurt Roeckx said: > On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 11:25:02PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote: > > This one time, at band camp, Kurt Roeckx said: > > > xlibs should get removed, so I think it should be a Conflicts. > > > > Surely nothing so drastic as removing xlibs is necessary for moving a > > file between packages? The versioned conflicts/replaces/etc magic is > > probably all that's necessary. > > xlibs is a transitional package that should get removed in the > 6.9.0.dfsg.1-2 version. The binary package shouldn't exist at > all anymore. That would make some sense, but there seems like an awful lot of stuff still to move out if it's only a transition package: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg -L xlibs | wc -l 357 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg -l xlibs ii xlibs 6.9.0.dfsg.1-1 X Window System client libraries metapackage and XKB data Take care, -- --------- | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#338715: xserver-xorg: file conflict with nvidia-glx
This one time, at band camp, Daniel Stone said: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:21:32PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote: > > Right, I was talking about having xserver-xorg do it as well. Let me > > rephrase a bit: > > > > I believe the nvidia packages in debian are doing it right now because > > they had to be coinstallable with xserver-xfree86. Since xorg is the > > new kid on the block, so to speak, it can no longer claim "I owned the > > file first", so it is an xorg bug at least partly. > > /me frowns. xserver-xorg is a logical continuation of xserver-xfree86, > and I daresay the userbase of xserver-xorg without proprietary drivers > is much greater than that of xserver-xorg with proprietary drivers. Hmm, I think somehow (late night, beer, whatever), this has gotten at cross purposes. I actually agree with you (that's what the 'at least partly' meant, at any rate). What I was trying to say was that xserver-xfree86 was always the canonical place for the gl libs to live, and it was always other packages job to work around xserver-xfree86 if they needed to divert some of those files. When vorlon said that nvidia-glx was around first, I took that to mean that the argument is something like "xserver-xorg has been packaged after nvidia-glx, and so it can't quite make the same claim xserver-xfree86 could, even though it is a logical extension." This argument is somewhat reasonable - it is the job of the second package to make sure it coexists with extant ones. If I misread vorlon, I'm sorry. That being said, I am not asking you to bend over backwards for every non-free driver out there. I thought that adding a diversion for the gl libs likely to be diverted by other driver packages would be relatively straight forward, and would future proof some of this end of things. Not because I want xorg to make a special effort to play nice with non-free packagees in general (I have no partivular reason to care, in fact, as I don't use any of them, as my last attempt at using the ATI ones were not particularly inspiring), but because it seems like a reasonable thing to do, given that many of them are out there, and people expect to use them in a reasonably hassle free way. > > Additionally, all these proprietary add on drivers that insist on > > providing their own gl libraries usually don't bother with dpkg-divert > > calls (presumably because they are packaged by monkeys at ATI or > > something), so having some of that logic in the xorg packages would be > > helpful in the general case, even if there was no bug in xorg as such. > > Look, I'm no fan of proprietary drivers, but calling the driver people > 'monkeys' is a bit harsh. Especially when they provide RPMs that people > insist on alien'ing for their older drivers, and they now provide an > installer that generates debs, and ... wait for it ... does the right > thing with diversions. > > Which leaves nvidia. And you can call them monkeys for their packages > not working with Debian by default, but only as much as you can call > Debian monkeys for not working with nvidia stuff by default. I don't mean to malign them unfairly. The once or twice I have tried to use the fglrx debs, it has been an unpleasant experience that would require a --force-overwrite to get out of. I am glad to hear they've gotten better. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#338715: xserver-xorg: file conflict with nvidia-glx
This one time, at band camp, Daniel Stone said: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:03:12PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote: > > This has been an ongoing thing, I thought, and could be solved with a > > dpkg-divert, rather than a conflicts line. > > Yes, as nvidia-glx already does for libGLcore. It hasn't updated its > diversions for xserver-xorg yet, so it spuriously diverts libGLcore, > and fails to divert libglx. > > However, it has been asserted that this is an xserver-xorg bug, so I'll > still be investigating ways we can somehow fix this in xserver-xorg. Right, I was talking about having xserver-xorg do it as well. Let me rephrase a bit: I believe the nvidia packages in debian are doing it right now because they had to be coinstallable with xserver-xfree86. Since xorg is the new kid on the block, so to speak, it can no longer claim "I owned the file first", so it is an xorg bug at least partly. Additionally, all these proprietary add on drivers that insist on providing their own gl libraries usually don't bother with dpkg-divert calls (presumably because they are packaged by monkeys at ATI or something), so having some of that logic in the xorg packages would be helpful in the general case, even if there was no bug in xorg as such. Thanks, -- ----- | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#338715: xserver-xorg: file conflict with nvidia-glx
This one time, at band camp, Daniel Stone said: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 06:21:06AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:52:45PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > Obviously, this is nvidia-glx's problem, not xorg's. > > > > The nvidia-glx package exists, and was here first. You don't get to say > > it's somebody else's problem when *your* package causes a user's > > dist-upgrade from sarge to etch to fail. > > > > If the nvidia-glx package should not be providing this file, then that's a > > bug as well, but you haven't given explanation of *why* this is a bug in > > nvidia-glx. If the file needs to be removed/moved, then it's fine to > > wait until this is done in nvidia-glx before adding an appropriate > > Conflicts: or Replaces:, but in the end the bug still needs to be dealt > > with in xserver-xorg. > > At this stage, I will defer to your superior knowledge of the > situation, and not reassign the bug. This has been an ongoing thing, I thought, and could be solved with a dpkg-divert, rather than a conflicts line. There are several other implemnetations floating around on line (the non free ATI drivers also suffer from this), so at least getting everybody in Debian to do this would cause a lot less pain all around. Juat a thought, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#318663: [i810_drv] uses kernel i915 module which screws console and results in wrong geometry for X.
This one time, at band camp, Stephen Gran said: > Yes, that gives me back my VT's, although now glxgears only gets ~32 fps > (down from ~850 fps with the distributed one). Phooey. Well, I'd > rather have VT's than GL speed, so thank you for the fix. Disregard even this. I apparently have decided to try udev here, and it was apparently the cause of the slowness. I see that it created a device node (dri/card0) several seconds _after_ X started. Restarting X once the device node was there returns everything to normal. So from my point of view, everything but udev is working as it should. Thanks again, -- - | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#318663: [i810_drv] uses kernel i915 module which screws console and results in wrong geometry for X.
severity 318663 grave merge 318663 318218 thanks This one time, at band camp, David Martínez Moreno said: > El Miércoles, 20 de Julio de 2005 00:28, Stephen Gran escribió: > [...] > > Well, hrmph. This is looking more like a vgahw bug after all. After > > tonight's upgrade to -3, X can use the kernel i915 module and still get > > correct resolution (and DRI is working again, although glxgears is > > slower than I remember it being). However, the console is still > > absolutely blank. > > > > Sorry for duplicating bugs and effort for you all, and thanks for the > > good work. > > ;-) Do not worry! It is our 'work'. Have you used the workaround that I > send > to everyone having problems with blank console? Replace libvgahw.a with the > one in http://people.debian.org/~ender/ in order to try to fix your console. > See #318218 for further information. Yes, that gives me back my VT's, although now glxgears only gets ~32 fps (down from ~850 fps with the distributed one). Phooey. Well, I'd rather have VT's than GL speed, so thank you for the fix. Merging this with the others, since they seem to be roughly related. Take care, -- ----- | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#318663: [i810_drv] uses kernel i915 module which screws console and results in wrong geometry for X.
This one time, at band camp, David Martínez Moreno said: > El Lunes, 18 de Julio de 2005 17:47, Stephen Gran escribió: > > This one time, at band camp, David Martínez Moreno said: > > > There was an error in the bug report script included with 6.8.2.dfsg.1-2 > > > and before. Could you please send /etc/X11/xorg.conf contents instead of > > > XF86Config-4 to the bug address? > > > > They are identical. If you like, I will send it along, but diff produces > > no output between the two files, so I am not sure it's important to add > > another largeish attachment, when you have the same thing already. > > Oh, no, it is enough to know that they are the same. Well, hrmph. This is looking more like a vgahw bug after all. After tonight's upgrade to -3, X can use the kernel i915 module and still get correct resolution (and DRI is working again, although glxgears is slower than I remember it being). However, the console is still absolutely blank. Sorry for duplicating bugs and effort for you all, and thanks for the good work. -- --------- | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#318663: [i810_drv] uses kernel i915 module which screws console and results in wrong geometry for X.
This one time, at band camp, David Martínez Moreno said: > There was an error in the bug report script included with > 6.8.2.dfsg.1-2 and > before. Could you please send /etc/X11/xorg.conf contents instead of > XF86Config-4 to the bug address? They are identical. If you like, I will send it along, but diff produces no output between the two files, so I am not sure it's important to add another largeish attachment, when you have the same thing already. Thanks, -- - | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#218864: xlibs-dev: won't install because of version conflict with xlibs
This one time, at band camp, Brian Minton said: > Package: xlibs-dev > Severity: grave > Justification: renders package unusable > > > apt-get install xlibs-dev > Reading Package Lists... Done > Building Dependency Tree... Done > Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have > requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable > distribution that some required packages have not yet been created > or been moved out of Incoming. > > Since you only requested a single operation it is extremely likely that > the package is simply not installable and a bug report against > that package should be filed. > The following information may help to resolve the situation: > > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > xlibs-dev: Depends: xlibs (= 4.2.1-13) but 4.3.0-0ds3v1 is to be > installed > E: Broken packages Experimental in your sources.list, maybe? steve:~$ apt-cache policy xlibs-dev xlibs-dev: 4.2.1-13 0 500 http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main Packages So the one from main is 4.2.1-13 - it looks like somthing is wrong on your end. -- ----- | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - pgpv7PAnMUPbI.pgp Description: PGP signature
