Re: Re: Re: Bug#748753: Upload xxv-intel 2.99.x to sid?
On 30 April 2015 at 16:53, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 20:55:29 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > >> There's also the problem that as soon as a new kernel release is >> uploaded to Sid, a few nasty bugs which are fixed on 2.99.x are going to >> appear, at least for Haswell users. >> > Sounds to me like a bug that ought to get fixed in the kernel. > > Cheers, > Julien Hello Julien, The crash I'm referring to is caused by null pointer dereference in src/uxa/intel_display.c, so I think it looks like a bug in the xxv-intel driver. Kind regards, Luca Boccassi signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Re: Bug#748753: Upload xxv-intel 2.99.x to sid?
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 20:55:29 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > There's also the problem that as soon as a new kernel release is > uploaded to Sid, a few nasty bugs which are fixed on 2.99.x are going to > appear, at least for Haswell users. > Sounds to me like a bug that ought to get fixed in the kernel. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Bug#748753: Upload xxv-intel 2.99.x to sid?
On 28/04/15 15:28, Vincent Cheng wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort > wrote: >> On 28/04/15 12:02, Vincent Cheng wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Now that jessie is out and the freeze is over, would anyone object if >>> I were to upload xserver-xorg-video-intel from experimental to sid >>> now? 3.0 is supposed to be an "imminent release" [1] anyways. >> >> Given that 2.21.x is completely unmaintained, and that the only relevant >> changes >> from 2.21.15 to 2.99.901 [1] were SNA enabled by default (which upstream >> considers ready and which can be reverted anyway) and XMir integration >> (which we >> don't care about) I see no reason to withhold this upload any longer. It's >> not >> like we're going to release Stretch with 2.21.x again, so the sooner we >> upload >> it, the more testing it will get. FWIW I used it for several months without >> issues. >> >> This sounds similar to Grub2 being at 2.02~beta2, or when it was at 1.99 for >> so >> long. > > Fully agreed here. I've also given out my rationale for updating to > 2.99.x in an earlier mail to #748753 [1]. > > Upstream clearly doesn't particularly care about sane versioning; I > don't think it's helpful to get hung up on the versioning scheme and > the lack of a formal release here. Hello, There's also the problem that as soon as a new kernel release is uploaded to Sid, a few nasty bugs which are fixed on 2.99.x are going to appear, at least for Haswell users. For example, monitor hotplug is horribly broken on xxv-intel 2.21 + kernel >= 3.19 [1]. I've been using 2.99.x on a Haswell laptop for 4 months, with kernels 3.16, 3.18, 3.19 and now 4.0, without issues. Kind regards, Luca Boccassi [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=779603 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#748753: Upload xxv-intel 2.99.x to sid?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 28/04/15 12:02, Vincent Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Now that jessie is out and the freeze is over, would anyone object if >> I were to upload xserver-xorg-video-intel from experimental to sid >> now? 3.0 is supposed to be an "imminent release" [1] anyways. > > Given that 2.21.x is completely unmaintained, and that the only relevant > changes > from 2.21.15 to 2.99.901 [1] were SNA enabled by default (which upstream > considers ready and which can be reverted anyway) and XMir integration (which > we > don't care about) I see no reason to withhold this upload any longer. It's not > like we're going to release Stretch with 2.21.x again, so the sooner we upload > it, the more testing it will get. FWIW I used it for several months without > issues. > > This sounds similar to Grub2 being at 2.02~beta2, or when it was at 1.99 for > so > long. Fully agreed here. I've also given out my rationale for updating to 2.99.x in an earlier mail to #748753 [1]. Upstream clearly doesn't particularly care about sane versioning; I don't think it's helpful to get hung up on the versioning scheme and the lack of a formal release here. Regards, Vincent [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=748753#45 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caczd_tchbcj4sqfmlnhszkthd-z+chwizt5wbsmaeqwoanf...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Bug#748753: Upload xxv-intel 2.99.x to sid?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 15:28:51 +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:02:37AM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Now that jessie is out and the freeze is over, would anyone object if > > I were to upload xserver-xorg-video-intel from experimental to sid > > now? 3.0 is supposed to be an "imminent release" [1] anyways. > > isn't this imminent status given since a year? > Pretty much, yes. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#748753: Upload xxv-intel 2.99.x to sid?
Probably, but why keep it in experimental just because the number scheme is a little bit off. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Bug#748753: Upload xxv-intel 2.99.x to sid?
No - please do so. I've been using it from experimental since christmas with no issues. Xorg reports this : [ 4.086] (II) Module intel: vendor="X.Org Foundation" [ 4.088] (II) intel: Driver for Intel(R) Integrated Graphics Chipsets: [ 4.088] (II) intel: Driver for Intel(R) HD Graphics: 2000-6000 [ 4.088] (II) intel: Driver for Intel(R) Iris(TM) Graphics: 5100, 6100 [ 4.088] (II) intel: Driver for Intel(R) Iris(TM) Pro Graphics: 5200, 6200, P6300 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
