Bug#406058: failed to load module kbd

2007-01-08 Thread Zaplinski, Olaf
Package: xorg Version: 1:7.1.0-9 Severity: critical Justification: startup fails I just dist-upgraded from woody to etch. When I tried to start X, I got: failed to load module kbd dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg did not help at all. Manually installing the needed drivers for my system

Bug#406058: failed to load module kbd

2007-01-08 Thread Julien Cristau
On Mon, Jan 8, 2007 at 13:34:30 +0100, Zaplinski, Olaf wrote: Package: xorg Version: 1:7.1.0-9 Severity: critical Justification: startup fails I just dist-upgraded from woody to etch. When I tried to start X, I got: Hi Olaf, do you really mean woody and not sarge? Direct upgrades from

Bug#406058: failed to load module kbd

2007-01-08 Thread Julien Cristau
On Mon, Jan 8, 2007 at 13:34:30 +0100, Zaplinski, Olaf wrote: Package: xorg Version: 1:7.1.0-9 Severity: critical Justification: startup fails I just dist-upgraded from woody to etch. When I tried to start X, I got: failed to load module kbd dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg did not

Bug#406058: failed to load module kbd

2007-01-08 Thread Steve Langasek
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:32:49PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: Package: xorg Version: 1:7.1.0-9 Severity: critical Justification: startup fails I just dist-upgraded from woody to etch. When I tried to start X, I got: failed to load module kbd dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg did

Bug#405639: Bug#406058: failed to load module kbd

2007-01-08 Thread Julien Cristau
On Mon, Jan 8, 2007 at 13:21:54 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: So what should be done with this bug? Should it be merged with bug #405639? Do you think it needs to be treated as RC independently of bug #405639? (FWIW, I don't; smooth upgrades from unofficial backports are absolutely not RC in

Bug#405639: Bug#406058: failed to load module kbd

2007-01-08 Thread David Nusinow
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 11:27:22PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: On Mon, Jan 8, 2007 at 13:21:54 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: So what should be done with this bug? Should it be merged with bug #405639? Do you think it needs to be treated as RC independently of bug #405639? (FWIW, I