Bug#424975: please don't conflict with fglrx-driver
On Sat, 2007-05-19 at 00:55 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:35:07 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: How can I overcome the problem on my system, since i have an fglrx-driver that does work? rename the fglrx package, or don't upgrade xserver-xorg-core? Because, um, xserver-xorg-core is updated for no good reason; there is surely nothing in the new package which anybody could possibly want?! Or, perhaps, allow fglrx to declare the conflict, since it's fglrx that has the bug, and not xserver-xorg-core?! Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#424975: please don't conflict with fglrx-driver
Package: xserver-xorg-core Version: 2:1.3.0.0.dfsg-4 Severity: important --- Please enter the report below this line. --- The recently added conflict with fglrx-driver shouldn't be there. I have a patched fglrx-driver, and it works fine, and there is no way with an unversioned and unqualified conflicts (such as now exists in Debian xorg) to say that mine works fine. Can you please drop the conflicts? Tracking non-Debian packages like this seems dangerous anyway. Thomas --- System information. --- Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-4-686 Debian Release: lenny/sid 500 unstableftp.us.debian.org 500 stable security.debian.org --- Package information. --- Depends (Version) | Installed =-+-= x11-common (= 1:7.0.0) | 1:7.2-3 libc6 (= 2.5-5) | 2.5-7 libdrm2(= 2.3.0) | 2.3.0-4 libfontenc1 | 1:1.0.4-2 libgcc1 (= 1:4.1.2) | 1:4.1.2-7 libxau6 | 1:1.0.3-2 libxdmcp6 | 1:1.0.2-2 libxfont1 | 1:1.2.8-1 xserver-xorg | 1:7.2-3 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#424975: please don't conflict with fglrx-driver
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 11:40 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: severity 424975 wishlist kthxbye On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 01:42:52 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: The recently added conflict with fglrx-driver shouldn't be there. I have a patched fglrx-driver, and it works fine, and there is no way with an unversioned and unqualified conflicts (such as now exists in Debian xorg) to say that mine works fine. Can you please drop the conflicts? Tracking non-Debian packages like this seems dangerous anyway. I'll drop it when the fglrx-driver package in non-free works with the xserver-xorg-core package in Debian, as noted in the changelog. How can I overcome the problem on my system, since i have an fglrx-driver that does work? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#366556: gnucash fails to start
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A workaround with the side-effect that anyone with a FontPath of /usr/lib/X11/fonts/foo will be unable to see those fonts in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/foo, though. Yes. It's not a perfect workaround, merely a solution to that one problem, in one case. The bug is marked important (and its severity can be increased, for all it matters to me), and my primary concern, as the gnucash maintainer, is that it is not a gnucash bug; it's a problem in the X packages. I have no particular suggestions about how to handle the release engineering of this; thinking about these problems invariably makes my head hurt, and I'm grateful for those of my fellow developers who excel in this skill which I, sadly, lack. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
new release
I note that X11R7 has been released. It would be so nifty if this could be in etch. Unless I hear back shortly, I'll open a wishlist bug for it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bug 295175
Bug 295175 is tagged pending; can you give me some idea of the time frame I should expect before the fix is in the archive? Also, how long do the autobuilds of xfree86 take normally to get through the process on the buildds (if you happen to know)? I ask because a package of mine (gnucash) is stuck waiting for the fix to be in, and people are clamoring at my doorstep about unrelated gnucash issues that are being held up in turn; I would like to be able to give them some kind of time frame. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why XFree86 4.2 Isn't in Woody
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What the fuck is going on! When in this insane world did Branden become the polite well mannered one, and I become the asshole! Uh oh, if we elect Branden DPL, is he going to switch back? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
Juliusz Chroboczek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I share your hope, but I cannot help noticing that the number of available scalable fonts is currently the greatest weakness of the Free Software and Open Source community (communities?). However, adding these fonts did nothing to help the problem, because they are still not free fonts. Indeed, it makes the problem *worse* by making it less likely that free fonts will get written. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
Juliusz Chroboczek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I share your hope, but I cannot help noticing that the number of available scalable fonts is currently the greatest weakness of the Free Software and Open Source community (communities?). However, adding these fonts did nothing to help the problem, because they are still not free fonts. Indeed, it makes the problem *worse* by making it less likely that free fonts will get written. Thomas
Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether app-defaults files can be regarded as configuration files or not is an arbitrary decision. By moving them to /etc/X11 in the default configuration, XFree86 has indicated their opinion. I see no reason to differ with them. In my soon-to-be-over job with Athena at MIT I can confirm that we frequently have had great need to change app-defaults files for various reasons, and it has been a difficulty that they are not config files in Red Hat's XFree86 (Red Hat is our supported Linux platform on Athena). So FWIW, I think XFree86 made the right decision, which is another reason not to differ with them. ;) I tried to get Xt to look in both directories, but several different attempts failed. It shouldn't be that hard to open one pathname and if you get ENOENT, to try opening the other insteadthat might be a useful compatibility feature to make work. (Though I agree that it's not nearly as crucial as some apparently think.) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XFree86 4.0.1 and app-defaults
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether app-defaults files can be regarded as configuration files or not is an arbitrary decision. By moving them to /etc/X11 in the default configuration, XFree86 has indicated their opinion. I see no reason to differ with them. In my soon-to-be-over job with Athena at MIT I can confirm that we frequently have had great need to change app-defaults files for various reasons, and it has been a difficulty that they are not config files in Red Hat's XFree86 (Red Hat is our supported Linux platform on Athena). So FWIW, I think XFree86 made the right decision, which is another reason not to differ with them. ;) I tried to get Xt to look in both directories, but several different attempts failed. It shouldn't be that hard to open one pathname and if you get ENOENT, to try opening the other insteadthat might be a useful compatibility feature to make work. (Though I agree that it's not nearly as crucial as some apparently think.) Thomas
