Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 11:21:52AM +, Philip Blundell wrote:
> I think this patch is roughly what's needed to fix the ARM cache coherency 
> problem.
> 
> Branden, could you also turn loader debugging off again for arm in the next 
> package version?

I have applied your patch, and turned off loader debugging in -9pre10v4.

Source and binaries for i386 are current at the X Strike Force
repository (see my .sig).  If someone can roll up arm binaries I'll be
happy to put them up at the XSF.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| I had thought very carefully about
Debian GNU/Linux   | comitting hara-kiri over this, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | I overslept this morning.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Toshio Yamaguchi


pgpAlP5TDwBuA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 11:21:52AM +, Philip Blundell wrote:
> I think this patch is roughly what's needed to fix the ARM cache coherency 
> problem.
> 
> Branden, could you also turn loader debugging off again for arm in the next 
> package version?

I have applied your patch, and turned off loader debugging in -9pre10v4.

Source and binaries for i386 are current at the X Strike Force
repository (see my .sig).  If someone can roll up arm binaries I'll be
happy to put them up at the XSF.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| I had thought very carefully about
Debian GNU/Linux   | comitting hara-kiri over this, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | I overslept this morning.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Toshio Yamaguchi

 PGP signature

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Philip Blundell]

I think this patch is roughly what's needed to fix the ARM cache coherency 
problem.

Branden, could you also turn loader debugging off again for arm in the next 
package version?

Thanks

p.

--- xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/common/compiler.h.oldWed Oct 31 
11:08:16 2001
+++ xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/common/compiler.hWed Oct 31 11:15:43 2001
@@ -1211,6 +1211,16 @@
 outl(val, port);
 }
 
+#define arm_flush_cache(addr)  \
+do {   \
+  register unsigned long _beg __asm ("a1") = (unsigned long) (addr);   \
+  register unsigned long _end __asm ("a2") = (unsigned long) (addr) + 4;\
+  register unsigned long _flg __asm ("a3") = 0;
\
+  __asm __volatile ("swi 0x9f0002  @ sys_cacheflush"   \
+: "=r" (_beg)  \
+: "0" (_beg), "r" (_end), "r" (_flg)); \
+} while (0)
+
 #else /* ix86 */
 
 #define ldq_u(p)   (*((unsigned long  *)(p)))
--- xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/loader/elfloader.c.old   Wed Oct 31 
11:08:17 2001
+++ xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/loader/elfloader.c   Wed Oct 31 11:15:38 2001
@@ -2077,6 +2077,7 @@
 val = symval - (unsigned long)dest32 + val;
 val >>= 2;
*dest32 = (*dest32 & 0xff00) | (val & 0x00ff); 
+   arm_flush_cache(dest32);
}
break;
 

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Philip Blundell]

I think this patch is roughly what's needed to fix the ARM cache coherency 
problem.

Branden, could you also turn loader debugging off again for arm in the next 
package version?

Thanks

p.

--- xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/common/compiler.h.oldWed Oct 31 11:08:16 
2001
+++ xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/common/compiler.hWed Oct 31 11:15:43 2001
@@ -1211,6 +1211,16 @@
 outl(val, port);
 }
 
+#define arm_flush_cache(addr)  \
+do {   \
+  register unsigned long _beg __asm ("a1") = (unsigned long) (addr);   \
+  register unsigned long _end __asm ("a2") = (unsigned long) (addr) + 4;\
+  register unsigned long _flg __asm ("a3") = 0;\
+  __asm __volatile ("swi 0x9f0002  @ sys_cacheflush"   \
+: "=r" (_beg)  \
+: "0" (_beg), "r" (_end), "r" (_flg)); \
+} while (0)
+
 #else /* ix86 */
 
 #define ldq_u(p)   (*((unsigned long  *)(p)))
--- xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/loader/elfloader.c.old   Wed Oct 31 11:08:17 
2001
+++ xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/loader/elfloader.c   Wed Oct 31 11:15:38 2001
@@ -2077,6 +2077,7 @@
 val = symval - (unsigned long)dest32 + val;
 val >>= 2;
*dest32 = (*dest32 & 0xff00) | (val & 0x00ff); 
+   arm_flush_cache(dest32);
}
break;
 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Adam C Powell IV]

Philip Blundell wrote:


On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Adam C Powell IV wrote:

So, where do I get this patch?  It doesn't come with the 4.1.0-6 source; 
I presume it's against 4.0.2-*?




I thought it was still shipped with 4.1.0 in "held-patches".  If not,
yeah, you can get it from the 4.0.x source.  Or in case of complete
desperation I can mail you a copy.


Oh yeah, there it is.  Thanks.
--

-Adam P.

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Philip Blundell]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Adam C Powell IV wrote:

> So, where do I get this patch?  It doesn't come with the 4.1.0-6 source; 
> I presume it's against 4.0.2-*?

I thought it was still shipped with 4.1.0 in "held-patches".  If not,
yeah, you can get it from the 4.0.x source.  Or in case of complete
desperation I can mail you a copy.

p.

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Adam C Powell IV]

Philip Blundell wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>
>>So, where do I get this patch?  It doesn't come with the 4.1.0-6 source; 
>>I presume it's against 4.0.2-*?
>>
>
>I thought it was still shipped with 4.1.0 in "held-patches".  If not,
>yeah, you can get it from the 4.0.x source.  Or in case of complete
>desperation I can mail you a copy.
>
Oh yeah, there it is.  Thanks.
-- 

-Adam P.

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 





-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Philip Blundell]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Adam C Powell IV wrote:

> So, where do I get this patch?  It doesn't come with the 4.1.0-6 source; 
> I presume it's against 4.0.2-*?

I thought it was still shipped with 4.1.0 in "held-patches".  If not,
yeah, you can get it from the 4.0.x source.  Or in case of complete
desperation I can mail you a copy.

p.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Adam C Powell IV]

Phil Blundell wrote:


I was pretty sure that the module loader would be broken.  I need an arm
hacker to go through the arm-specific patches in debian/held-patches an
re-merge them with 4.1.0.



Blast, yes, I forgot the module loader.

From a quick glance at the code, you want to apply 
600_arm_module_loader_and_port_IO.diff.  A lot of the elfloader.c hunks will 
fail but I think they are no longer required.  You also need at least the 
xf86sym.c part of 600a.diff; again one hunk will fail and can be ignored.


Okay, I'm getting sufficiently fed up with not having X on the netwinder 
that I'd like to give this a try.


So, where do I get this patch?  It doesn't come with the 4.1.0-6 source; 
I presume it's against 4.0.2-*?


Thanks,
--

-Adam P.

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Adam C Powell IV]

Phil Blundell wrote:

>>I was pretty sure that the module loader would be broken.  I need an arm
>>hacker to go through the arm-specific patches in debian/held-patches an
>>re-merge them with 4.1.0.
>>
>
>Blast, yes, I forgot the module loader.
>
>>From a quick glance at the code, you want to apply 
>600_arm_module_loader_and_port_IO.diff.  A lot of the elfloader.c hunks will 
>fail but I think they are no longer required.  You also need at least the 
>xf86sym.c part of 600a.diff; again one hunk will fail and can be ignored.
>
Okay, I'm getting sufficiently fed up with not having X on the netwinder 
that I'd like to give this a try.

So, where do I get this patch?  It doesn't come with the 4.1.0-6 source; 
I presume it's against 4.0.2-*?

Thanks,
-- 

-Adam P.

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 





-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Adam C Powell IV]

Phil Blundell wrote:


I was pretty sure that the module loader would be broken.  I need an arm
hacker to go through the arm-specific patches in debian/held-patches an
re-merge them with 4.1.0.



Blast, yes, I forgot the module loader.

From a quick glance at the code, you want to apply 
600_arm_module_loader_and_port_IO.diff.  A lot of the elfloader.c hunks will 
fail but I think they are no longer required.  You also need at least the 
xf86sym.c part of 600a.diff; again one hunk will fail and can be ignored.


Would someone like to try that out and see what happens?  Adam, if you still 
have your build tree around it should be quite easy to apply those patches and 
rebuild just the affected parts.


I'm sorry, I'm pretty swamped for the next three weeks.  If I get some 
time, I'll try it, but can't promise anything.


I did notice, however, that -4 seemed to autobuild!  Progress!

Zeen,
--

-Adam P.

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Adam C Powell IV]

Phil Blundell wrote:

>>I was pretty sure that the module loader would be broken.  I need an arm
>>hacker to go through the arm-specific patches in debian/held-patches an
>>re-merge them with 4.1.0.
>>
>
>Blast, yes, I forgot the module loader.
>
>>From a quick glance at the code, you want to apply 
>600_arm_module_loader_and_port_IO.diff.  A lot of the elfloader.c hunks will 
>fail but I think they are no longer required.  You also need at least the 
>xf86sym.c part of 600a.diff; again one hunk will fail and can be ignored.
>
>Would someone like to try that out and see what happens?  Adam, if you still 
>have your build tree around it should be quite easy to apply those patches and 
>rebuild just the affected parts.
>
I'm sorry, I'm pretty swamped for the next three weeks.  If I get some 
time, I'll try it, but can't promise anything.

I did notice, however, that -4 seemed to autobuild!  Progress!

Zeen,
-- 

-Adam P.

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 





-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Phil Blundell]

>I was pretty sure that the module loader would be broken.  I need an arm
>hacker to go through the arm-specific patches in debian/held-patches an
>re-merge them with 4.1.0.

Blast, yes, I forgot the module loader.

>From a quick glance at the code, you want to apply 
600_arm_module_loader_and_port_IO.diff.  A lot of the elfloader.c hunks will 
fail but I think they are no longer required.  You also need at least the 
xf86sym.c part of 600a.diff; again one hunk will fail and can be ignored.

Would someone like to try that out and see what happens?  Adam, if you still 
have your build tree around it should be quite easy to apply those patches and 
rebuild just the affected parts.

p.

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Phil Blundell]

>I was pretty sure that the module loader would be broken.  I need an arm
>hacker to go through the arm-specific patches in debian/held-patches an
>re-merge them with 4.1.0.

Blast, yes, I forgot the module loader.

>From a quick glance at the code, you want to apply 
600_arm_module_loader_and_port_IO.diff.  A lot of the elfloader.c hunks will 
fail but I think they are no longer required.  You also need at least the 
xf86sym.c part of 600a.diff; again one hunk will fail and can be ignored.

Would someone like to try that out and see what happens?  Adam, if you still 
have your build tree around it should be quite easy to apply those patches and 
rebuild just the affected parts.

p.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Branden Robinson]

[Please preserve followups to debian-x]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 02:10:02PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Sounds good?

Sounds great!  Thanks for doing this!

> Unfortunately, it didn't work.  Log at:
> http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/XFree86.0.log

I was pretty sure that the module loader would be broken.  I need an arm
hacker to go through the arm-specific patches in debian/held-patches an
re-merge them with 4.1.0.

Also, I'll turn on loader debugging for ARM (patch #999); it's already
enabled for m68k since the loader doesn't work there, either.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  When dogma enters the brain, all
Debian GNU/Linux   |  intellectual activity ceases.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  -- Robert Anton Wilson
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpAOHFMU8Lug.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Branden Robinson]

[Please preserve followups to debian-x]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 02:10:02PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Sounds good?

Sounds great!  Thanks for doing this!

> Unfortunately, it didn't work.  Log at:
> http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/XFree86.0.log

I was pretty sure that the module loader would be broken.  I need an arm
hacker to go through the arm-specific patches in debian/held-patches an
re-merge them with 4.1.0.

Also, I'll turn on loader debugging for ARM (patch #999); it's already
enabled for m68k since the loader doesn't work there, either.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  When dogma enters the brain, all
Debian GNU/Linux   |  intellectual activity ceases.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  -- Robert Anton Wilson
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

 PGP signature

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Adam C Powell IV]

Branden Robinson wrote:


[debian-arm readers, please keep debian-x in the thread]

On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 11:46:42AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:

It worked!  Failed the manifest check of course, but the diff looked 
kosher (a few cs -> cz and sk key map moves, lots of font stuff, man 
pages moved from /usr/share/man to /usr/X11R6/man, nothing of any 
consequence to the binary-arch packages).  So I touched 
debian/stampdir/install (since the manifest check ends that target), and 
am making binary-arch now, will genchanges and dupload when it's done. 
Oh- and will test it and see whether it works!  But since 4.0.3 is 
broken, maybe it's not such a bad thing to upload 4.1.0 either way? :-\




Please don't upload official .debs that are the result of a kludged
process like this.  It makes me really nervous.

I'd be happy to host such .debs at the X Strike Force, however, until we
have arm packages that build correctly from start to finish.

Okay... unfortunately, I didn't get your message in time, but due to 
interrupted builds from NFS errors (my Netwinder doesn't have sufficient 
disk space to build X), I ended up just re-starting from zero late last 
night, copying in the new MANIFEST.arm, and with that one file changed, 
everything built successfully from start to finish.  Just uploaded about 
three hours ago.


Sounds good?


Relevant files:
http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/MANIFEST.arm.4.1.0-2
http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/xfree86_4.1.0-2.build-install.log
and coming soon (an hour or two?):
http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/xfree86_4.1.0-2.binary-arch.log


Thanks!  I'll check this stuff out.


Okay, actually, the new unified build-install-binary log is at:
http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/xfree86_4.1.0-2.log

Unfortunately, it didn't work.  Log at:
http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/XFree86.0.log

Oh well,
--

-Adam P.

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Adam C Powell IV]

Branden Robinson wrote:

>[debian-arm readers, please keep debian-x in the thread]
>
>On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 11:46:42AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
>
>>It worked!  Failed the manifest check of course, but the diff looked 
>>kosher (a few cs -> cz and sk key map moves, lots of font stuff, man 
>>pages moved from /usr/share/man to /usr/X11R6/man, nothing of any 
>>consequence to the binary-arch packages).  So I touched 
>>debian/stampdir/install (since the manifest check ends that target), and 
>>am making binary-arch now, will genchanges and dupload when it's done. 
>>Oh- and will test it and see whether it works!  But since 4.0.3 is 
>>broken, maybe it's not such a bad thing to upload 4.1.0 either way? :-\
>>
>
>Please don't upload official .debs that are the result of a kludged
>process like this.  It makes me really nervous.
>
>I'd be happy to host such .debs at the X Strike Force, however, until we
>have arm packages that build correctly from start to finish.
>
Okay... unfortunately, I didn't get your message in time, but due to 
interrupted builds from NFS errors (my Netwinder doesn't have sufficient 
disk space to build X), I ended up just re-starting from zero late last 
night, copying in the new MANIFEST.arm, and with that one file changed, 
everything built successfully from start to finish.  Just uploaded about 
three hours ago.

Sounds good?

>>Relevant files:
>>http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/MANIFEST.arm.4.1.0-2
>>http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/xfree86_4.1.0-2.build-install.log
>>and coming soon (an hour or two?):
>>http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/xfree86_4.1.0-2.binary-arch.log
>>
>Thanks!  I'll check this stuff out.
>
Okay, actually, the new unified build-install-binary log is at:
http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/xfree86_4.1.0-2.log

Unfortunately, it didn't work.  Log at:
http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/XFree86.0.log

Oh well,
-- 

-Adam P.

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 





-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Branden Robinson]

[debian-arm readers, please keep debian-x in the thread]

On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 11:46:42AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> It worked!  Failed the manifest check of course, but the diff looked 
> kosher (a few cs -> cz and sk key map moves, lots of font stuff, man 
> pages moved from /usr/share/man to /usr/X11R6/man, nothing of any 
> consequence to the binary-arch packages).  So I touched 
> debian/stampdir/install (since the manifest check ends that target), and 
> am making binary-arch now, will genchanges and dupload when it's done. 
> Oh- and will test it and see whether it works!  But since 4.0.3 is 
> broken, maybe it's not such a bad thing to upload 4.1.0 either way? :-\

Please don't upload official .debs that are the result of a kludged
process like this.  It makes me really nervous.

I'd be happy to host such .debs at the X Strike Force, however, until we
have arm packages that build correctly from start to finish.

> Relevant files:
> http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/MANIFEST.arm.4.1.0-2
> http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/xfree86_4.1.0-2.build-install.log
> and coming soon (an hour or two?):
> http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/xfree86_4.1.0-2.binary-arch.log

Thanks!  I'll check this stuff out.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  We either learn from history or,
Debian GNU/Linux   |  uh, well, something bad will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  happen.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  -- Bob Church


pgpMcdtmdcg6V.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Branden Robinson]

[debian-arm readers, please keep debian-x in the thread]

On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 11:46:42AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> It worked!  Failed the manifest check of course, but the diff looked 
> kosher (a few cs -> cz and sk key map moves, lots of font stuff, man 
> pages moved from /usr/share/man to /usr/X11R6/man, nothing of any 
> consequence to the binary-arch packages).  So I touched 
> debian/stampdir/install (since the manifest check ends that target), and 
> am making binary-arch now, will genchanges and dupload when it's done. 
> Oh- and will test it and see whether it works!  But since 4.0.3 is 
> broken, maybe it's not such a bad thing to upload 4.1.0 either way? :-\

Please don't upload official .debs that are the result of a kludged
process like this.  It makes me really nervous.

I'd be happy to host such .debs at the X Strike Force, however, until we
have arm packages that build correctly from start to finish.

> Relevant files:
> http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/MANIFEST.arm.4.1.0-2
> http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/xfree86_4.1.0-2.build-install.log
> and coming soon (an hour or two?):
> http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/xfree86_4.1.0-2.binary-arch.log

Thanks!  I'll check this stuff out.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  We either learn from history or,
Debian GNU/Linux   |  uh, well, something bad will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  happen.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  -- Bob Church

 PGP signature

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Adam C Powell IV]

Adam C Powell IV wrote:

I'm afraid I don't have too much time to try it under multiple 
kernels, so someone else will have to investigate.  If 2.4.5 makes X 
build (won't know until tomorrow morning), I'll report that.


It worked!  Failed the manifest check of course, but the diff looked 
kosher (a few cs -> cz and sk key map moves, lots of font stuff, man 
pages moved from /usr/share/man to /usr/X11R6/man, nothing of any 
consequence to the binary-arch packages).  So I touched 
debian/stampdir/install (since the manifest check ends that target), and 
am making binary-arch now, will genchanges and dupload when it's done. 
Oh- and will test it and see whether it works!  But since 4.0.3 is 
broken, maybe it's not such a bad thing to upload 4.1.0 either way? :-\


So, ARM fails to build X under 2.2.19 because of fakeroot trouble, but 
2.4.5 is fine.  Someone may want to investigate why fakeroot fails under 
2.2.19, it seemed to work just fine for 2.2.13 but I didn't try to build 
X...


Relevant files:
http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/MANIFEST.arm.4.1.0-2
http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/xfree86_4.1.0-2.build-install.log
and coming soon (an hour or two?):
http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/xfree86_4.1.0-2.binary-arch.log

Zeen,
--

-Adam P.

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 

Re: What's the status on Xfree86 4.1.0?

[Adam C Powell IV]

Adam C Powell IV wrote:

> I'm afraid I don't have too much time to try it under multiple 
> kernels, so someone else will have to investigate.  If 2.4.5 makes X 
> build (won't know until tomorrow morning), I'll report that.

It worked!  Failed the manifest check of course, but the diff looked 
kosher (a few cs -> cz and sk key map moves, lots of font stuff, man 
pages moved from /usr/share/man to /usr/X11R6/man, nothing of any 
consequence to the binary-arch packages).  So I touched 
debian/stampdir/install (since the manifest check ends that target), and 
am making binary-arch now, will genchanges and dupload when it's done. 
 Oh- and will test it and see whether it works!  But since 4.0.3 is 
broken, maybe it's not such a bad thing to upload 4.1.0 either way? :-\

So, ARM fails to build X under 2.2.19 because of fakeroot trouble, but 
2.4.5 is fine.  Someone may want to investigate why fakeroot fails under 
2.2.19, it seemed to work just fine for 2.2.13 but I didn't try to build 
X...

Relevant files:
http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/MANIFEST.arm.4.1.0-2
http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/xfree86_4.1.0-2.build-install.log
and coming soon (an hour or two?):
http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/debs/xfree86_4.1.0-2.binary-arch.log

Zeen,
-- 

-Adam P.

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! 





-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]