Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:32:27AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > want two outputs both named VGA-0. And caring about the names is > somewhat futile anyway since what you're usually more concerned with is > the _monitor_, which is why all sane desktops save configurations based > on EDIDs not on output names. /etc/gnome-settings-daemon/xrandr/monitors.xml also uses output names. So does the kernel when configuring enabled outputs via video= on the kernel commandline. I would also prefer a command line argument that allows to enable the output where a display is connected when my system is docked and the lid is closed, there is no such thing afaik. Regards Till -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 14:04 +0100, Simone Caronni wrote: > On 25 November 2014 at 13:20, Lukas Zapletal wrote: > I don't understand why I noticed this today, it looks like the > latest > update was a Critical Path one (???) when Fedora 20 was stable > for six > months. > > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-7331/xorg-x11-server-utils-7.7-6.fc20 > > > from what I've seen xorg packages are always marked as Critical Path. > > The update you are referring to is six months old, are you sure the > xrandr command is the culprit and not something else? Did you skip > updates for six months? > > > There's an intel driver from 18th november, for example: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15384/xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.21.15-9.fc20 > > > > This seems to be much more related to your issues. I don't had any > output renaming recently in the past year (Nouveau here). FWIW my case is Intel too and this change did occur in the most recent update, over possibly a week but certainly not two weeks, and the device naming did change. > > > Regards, > > --Simone > > > > > > -- > You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose > sight of the shore (R. W. Emerson). > > http://xkcd.com/229/ > http://negativo17.org/ > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 25/11/14 16:55, Adam Jackson wrote: >> >> On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 15:57 +, Tom Hughes wrote: >> >>> I thought multi-gpu randr was supported in 1.4? I certainly see one >>> provider for each of the two gpus in this machine, and can see five >>> connectors across the two with three monitors connected. It looks like >>> it just adds an extra digit to the connector names on the second card: >> >> >> In the optimus sense of multi-gpu, yes, that works. In the classic >> Xinerama sense of "two PCIE cards installed next to each other", not so >> much. > > > That isn't optimus, at least not as I understand optimus, it's two Nvidia > PCIe cards: > > 03:00.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation G84 [GeForce 8600 GT] > (rev a1) > 04:00.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation GT218 [GeForce 210] Optimus means one card renders in the other cards framebuffer and only one of them actually scans out that framebuffer and puts it on screen. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
On 25/11/14 16:55, Adam Jackson wrote: On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 15:57 +, Tom Hughes wrote: I thought multi-gpu randr was supported in 1.4? I certainly see one provider for each of the two gpus in this machine, and can see five connectors across the two with three monitors connected. It looks like it just adds an extra digit to the connector names on the second card: In the optimus sense of multi-gpu, yes, that works. In the classic Xinerama sense of "two PCIE cards installed next to each other", not so much. That isn't optimus, at least not as I understand optimus, it's two Nvidia PCIe cards: 03:00.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation G84 [GeForce 8600 GT] (rev a1) 04:00.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation GT218 [GeForce 210] (rev a2) Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 15:57 +, Tom Hughes wrote: > I thought multi-gpu randr was supported in 1.4? I certainly see one > provider for each of the two gpus in this machine, and can see five > connectors across the two with three monitors connected. It looks like > it just adds an extra digit to the connector names on the second card: In the optimus sense of multi-gpu, yes, that works. In the classic Xinerama sense of "two PCIE cards installed next to each other", not so much. - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
On 25/11/14 15:32, Adam Jackson wrote: But when I say "come from the server" I really mean the 2D X driver makes up the name and the server just reports it. And indeed, between xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.21.15-4 and -9 output naming was changed to include a dash (if using UXA), which happened because the output setup code was synced with the version in the generic modesetting driver (which also happens to match radeon and nouveau). Upstream intel omits the dash for both sna and uxa still though. And if we were to ever get multi-gpu randr working the names would destabilize again, since we'd have to move the %d part of the name up to the core server since you really don't want two outputs both named VGA-0. And caring about the names is somewhat futile anyway since what you're usually more concerned with is the _monitor_, which is why all sane desktops save configurations based on EDIDs not on output names. I thought multi-gpu randr was supported in 1.4? I certainly see one provider for each of the two gpus in this machine, and can see five connectors across the two with three monitors connected. It looks like it just adds an extra digit to the connector names on the second card: DVI-I-1 connected primary 2560x1600+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 646mm x 406mm DVI-I-2 connected 1200x1600+2560+0 right (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 408mm x 306mm DVI-I-1-3 connected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) HDMI-1-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) VGA-1-1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) The fact that X crashes (BZ#1110273) if I try and rotate the monitor on the second graphics card means I can't actually use them all, but it works if I don't try and rotate it. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 09:14 +0100, Lukas Zapletal wrote: > my desktop was completely broken this morning because my startup scripts > rely on xrandr utility. An older update from this summer which I applied > recently changed it's output so device ids now contain dash characters > (e.g. instead VGA0 I see VGA-1). No it didn't. xorg-x11-server-utils did update from xrandr 1.4.0 to 1.4.2 between F20 gold and current updates, but as a quick glance at the upstream changelog shows [1], nothing between those two versions changed anything about output naming. It would be insane to do so; those names come from the server, so changing them in xrandr would mean xrandr disagreeing with everything else. But when I say "come from the server" I really mean the 2D X driver makes up the name and the server just reports it. And indeed, between xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.21.15-4 and -9 output naming was changed to include a dash (if using UXA), which happened because the output setup code was synced with the version in the generic modesetting driver (which also happens to match radeon and nouveau). Upstream intel omits the dash for both sna and uxa still though. And if we were to ever get multi-gpu randr working the names would destabilize again, since we'd have to move the %d part of the name up to the core server since you really don't want two outputs both named VGA-0. And caring about the names is somewhat futile anyway since what you're usually more concerned with is the _monitor_, which is why all sane desktops save configurations based on EDIDs not on output names. tl;dr it's a mess, sorry about that. Stable output naming isn't something that any of our desktop environments care about, afaik, so it's not something I'd ever see as a regression. In a sense, noticing this level of implementation detail is the price you pay for choosing not to run something that gets it right for you. [2] [1] - http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/xrandr/log/ [2] - And Linux, as we know, is all about choice. - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
Am 25.11.2014 um 14:31 schrieb Lukas Zapletal: There's an intel driver from 18th november, for example: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15384/xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.21.15-9.fc20 This seems to be much more related to your issues. I don't had any output renaming recently in the past year (Nouveau here). That answers the question why I experienced the change today, and not six months ago :-) I understand why drivers are updated for stable releases, that's fine. Not sure about the Critical Path (graphics drivers can bite, more testing time is perhaps the better) how much testing? and the important question: testing exactly what? the intel driver was built 2014-09-10 installed xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.21.15-9.fc20.x86_64 from koji 2 weeks ago on 4 machines (Sandy Bridge and IvyBridge) without any issue on Fedora machines installed in 2011 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
- Original Message - > > There's an intel driver from 18th november, for example: > > > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15384/xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.21.15-9.fc20 > > > > This seems to be much more related to your issues. I don't had any output > > renaming recently in the past year (Nouveau here). > > That answers the question why I experienced the change today, and not > six months ago :-) > > I understand why drivers are updated for stable releases, that's fine. Could it be driver update? ;-) > Not sure about the Critical Path (graphics drivers can bite, more > testing time is perhaps the better) but if this is our policy, there > must be some reasons for that. One reason why you can see such updates is F21 - as it was significantly delayed, this way we're able help F20 users to enable theirs new HW, improve performance etc. But downside of it is, that it can cause issues elsewhere. R. > > Thanks! > > -- > Later, > Lukas #lzap Zapletal > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
On 25.11.2014 10:26, drago01 wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Lukas Zapletal wrote: >> Hello, >> >> my desktop was completely broken this morning because my startup scripts >> rely on xrandr utility. An older update from this summer which I applied >> recently changed it's output so device ids now contain dash characters >> (e.g. instead VGA0 I see VGA-1). > > Which desktop are you using? You shouldn't have to mess with startup > scripts that call xrandr to get a monitor setup working. > Oh, is it really so? $ lightdm --show-config [LightDM] A minimum-vt=1 [SeatDefaults] A greeter-session=lightdm-greeter A session-wrapper=/etc/X11/xinit/Xsession A display-setup-script=/usr/bin/conf-nouveau Sources: A /etc/lightdm/lightdm.conf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
> There's an intel driver from 18th november, for example: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15384/xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.21.15-9.fc20 > > This seems to be much more related to your issues. I don't had any output > renaming recently in the past year (Nouveau here). That answers the question why I experienced the change today, and not six months ago :-) I understand why drivers are updated for stable releases, that's fine. Not sure about the Critical Path (graphics drivers can bite, more testing time is perhaps the better) but if this is our policy, there must be some reasons for that. Thanks! -- Later, Lukas #lzap Zapletal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
On 25 November 2014 at 13:20, Lukas Zapletal wrote: > I don't understand why I noticed this today, it looks like the latest > update was a Critical Path one (???) when Fedora 20 was stable for six > months. > > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-7331/xorg-x11-server-utils-7.7-6.fc20 from what I've seen xorg packages are always marked as Critical Path. The update you are referring to is six months old, are you sure the xrandr command is the culprit and not something else? Did you skip updates for six months? There's an intel driver from 18th november, for example: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15384/xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.21.15-9.fc20 This seems to be much more related to your issues. I don't had any output renaming recently in the past year (Nouveau here). Regards, --Simone -- You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore (R. W. Emerson). http://xkcd.com/229/ http://negativo17.org/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
> Anyhow, I hit the same thing this morning, with LVDS1 changing > to LVDS-0, HDMI3 to HDMI-2 and VGA1 to VGA-0. This was on an > Intel adapter. Exactly. I use i3wm and I use xrandr to determine if I have my laptop docked with IPS panel, docked with VGA monitor or standalone. Then I setup all my workspace appropriately. > It's not a big deal, however, it was rather unexpected in the > middle of a stable release... Yeah, I have fixed that after 10 minutes this morning. I just want to ask *why* we rebase things for stable releases. If I want to live on the edge, I use Rawhide. I don't understand why I noticed this today, it looks like the latest update was a Critical Path one (???) when Fedora 20 was stable for six months. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-7331/xorg-x11-server-utils-7.7-6.fc20 Something is not right here. a) We should not be bumping up versions of packages for stable releases. b) We should definitely not do this with Critical Paths. -- Later, Lukas #lzap Zapletal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:26:43AM +0100, drago01 wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Lukas Zapletal wrote: > > Hello, > > > > my desktop was completely broken this morning because my startup scripts > > rely on xrandr utility. An older update from this summer which I applied > > recently changed it's output so device ids now contain dash characters > > (e.g. instead VGA0 I see VGA-1). > > Which desktop are you using? You shouldn't have to mess with startup > scripts that call xrandr to get a monitor setup working. We have plenty of simple window managers in Fedora. These generally don't do things like monitor setup for you. Anyhow, I hit the same thing this morning, with LVDS1 changing to LVDS-0, HDMI3 to HDMI-2 and VGA1 to VGA-0. This was on an Intel adapter. It's not a big deal, however, it was rather unexpected in the middle of a stable release... P pgp53IdQwV702.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
On 25/11/14 09:26, drago01 wrote: > Which desktop are you using? You shouldn't have to mess with startup > scripts that call xrandr to get a monitor setup working. Here's one example: Intel drv, monitor with broken EDID, Gnome 3.12. This is limited to either 800x60 or 1024x768 (forget which). (Have not tested this on 3.14.) Colin 0xC5326EE5.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Lukas Zapletal wrote: > Hello, > > my desktop was completely broken this morning because my startup scripts > rely on xrandr utility. An older update from this summer which I applied > recently changed it's output so device ids now contain dash characters > (e.g. instead VGA0 I see VGA-1). Which desktop are you using? You shouldn't have to mess with startup scripts that call xrandr to get a monitor setup working. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
> Using what gfxchip? VGA0 I don't remember ever seeing. Most I remember seeing: Yeah, that was a typo. It's actually DP-1 and LVDS-0 (Thinkpad T403s with Intel). Anyway, this changed from DP1 and LVDS0. -- Later, Lukas #lzap Zapletal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
Lukas Zapletal composed on 2014-11-25 09:14 (UTC+0100): > my desktop was completely broken this morning because my startup scripts > rely on xrandr utility. An older update from this summer which I applied > recently changed it's output so device ids now contain dash characters > (e.g. instead VGA0 I see VGA-1). Using what gfxchip? VGA0 I don't remember ever seeing. Most I remember seeing: VGA # Intel analog (old) VGA1# Intel analog HDMI1 # Intel HDMI aka DVI DP1 # Intel DisplayPort VGA-1 # Nouveau analog DVI0# Nouveau & NV DVI DVI-I-1 # Nouveau DVII multihead DVI-I-2 # Nouveau DVII multihead VGA-0 # Radeon analog DVI-0 # Radeon DVI > I just wonder why this landed into stable repository. The package > changelog really shows it's a rolling release kinda thing. > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/xorg-x11-server-utils.git/log/?h=f20 > I understand some packages has exceptions, like kernel, firmware and > such things. But xorg tools? Thanks for explanation. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 09:14 +0100, Lukas Zapletal wrote: > Hello, > > my desktop was completely broken this morning because my startup scripts > rely on xrandr utility. An older update from this summer which I applied > recently changed it's output so device ids now contain dash characters > (e.g. instead VGA0 I see VGA-1). Yeah, it's a bit annoying, just got caught by it myself. I have a simple kvm switch and I can't leave it to defaults or I get a low res display. So I have to use a /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/00-monitor.conf. > > I just wonder why this landed into stable repository. The package > changelog really shows it's a rolling release kinda thing. > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/xorg-x11-server-utils.git/log/?h=f20 > > I understand some packages has exceptions, like kernel, firmware and > such things. But xorg tools? Thanks for explanation. > > -- > Later, > Lukas #lzap Zapletal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Are we rebasing xorg-x11 packages in F20?
Hello, my desktop was completely broken this morning because my startup scripts rely on xrandr utility. An older update from this summer which I applied recently changed it's output so device ids now contain dash characters (e.g. instead VGA0 I see VGA-1). I just wonder why this landed into stable repository. The package changelog really shows it's a rolling release kinda thing. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/xorg-x11-server-utils.git/log/?h=f20 I understand some packages has exceptions, like kernel, firmware and such things. But xorg tools? Thanks for explanation. -- Later, Lukas #lzap Zapletal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
