On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:24:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> (Hmm, maybe you could use tmpfs for /tmp, and mount the same one in both
> the real root and the chroot? I've never tried this myself.)
Doesn't help as tmpfs instances are compeltly separate. You could
mount --bind the real /tmp
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Out of curiosity, how can doing the chdir() break anything? A relative
> symlink has to be resolved relative to the directory in which the
Because now you're in a different directory than you expect. However,
since this is just exec()ing the X serve
reopen 206524
severity 206524 wishlist
retitle 206524 xfree86: don't transition files missing the debconf markers
reassign 206524 xfree86
thanks
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:40:52AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> I understand, however I think this is still a bug since to avoid that
> debconf messes
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:47:51PM +0200, Frank Murphy wrote:
> I felt that the second part "If a program or failsafe argument was given and
>
> is allowed (see above), it is used instead" was also unclear about what
> "it" is used instead, the argument or the .Xsession.
>
> Also, in the s
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 06:22:30PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Eh? I haven't weighed in on this issue at all. I simply saw the
> changelog message when upgrading my X packages, read the 138195 bug
> report, and wondered why nobody had pointed out what seemed "obvious" to
> me.
Er, sorry. For some r
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 206524
Bug#206524: xserver-xfree86: XF86Config-4 is overwritten even when it is not
managed by debconf
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> severity 206524 wishlist
Bug#206524: xserver-xfree86: XF86Config-4 is overwritten even when it is not
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 11:05:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Sorry, I forgot that you do need *one* patch.
>
> debian/patches/908*
No luck just yet either. Anyone else have experience making a patch-free build?
(The machine i'm doing my testing with is really not a place I want to put
no
reopen 206524
severity 206524 wishlist
retitle 206524 xfree86: don't transition files missing the debconf markers
reassign 206524 xfree86
thanks
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:40:52AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> I understand, however I think this is still a bug since to avoid that
> debconf messes
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:47:51PM +0200, Frank Murphy wrote:
> I felt that the second part "If a program or failsafe argument was given and
> is allowed (see above), it is used instead" was also unclear about what
> "it" is used instead, the argument or the .Xsession.
>
> Also, in the seco
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:24:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 01:49:04PM -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
> > The backwards incompatibility of libc in unstable combined with my use
> > of a commercial X server leaves me...a little stuck. Attempts to simply
> > use the old li
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:22:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 07:04:19PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > There's an email in your inbox explaining why I can't co, ci, up, pg or pe,
> > and
> > what you have to do to restore my ability to do so, remember? :)
>
> You al
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 06:22:30PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Eh? I haven't weighed in on this issue at all. I simply saw the
> changelog message when upgrading my X packages, read the 138195 bug
> report, and wondered why nobody had pointed out what seemed "obvious" to
> me.
Er, sorry. For some r
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 206524
Bug#206524: xserver-xfree86: XF86Config-4 is overwritten even when it is not managed
by debconf
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> severity 206524 wishlist
Bug#206524: xserver-xfree86: XF86Config-4 is overwritten even when it is not
Your message dated Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:41:22 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#206524: xserver-xfree86: XF86Config-4 is overwritten even
when it is not managed by debconf
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the probl
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 11:05:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Sorry, I forgot that you do need *one* patch.
>
> debian/patches/908*
No luck just yet either. Anyone else have experience making a patch-free build? (The
machine i'm doing my testing with is really not a place I want to put non
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 206620 xserver-xfree86
Bug#206620: XFree Crash
Warning: Unknown package 'xfree'
Bug reassigned from package `xfree' to `xserver-xfree86'.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracki
OoO La nuit ayant déjà recouvert d'encre ce jour du jeudi 21 août
2003, vers 23:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System)
disait:
> Okay, if your analysis is correct then there MUST exist the following
> file:
> /etc/X11/XF86Config-4.dpkg-old
Yes, it is here.
> You still had xserver-xf
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You spent a lot of time in the bug logs of #138195 arguing that the
> chdir() before the execv() would have exactly this advantage, didn't
> you?
>
> If so, how is this an advantage over the current implementation?
Eh? I haven't weighed in on this is
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:24:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 01:49:04PM -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
> > The backwards incompatibility of libc in unstable combined with my use
> > of a commercial X server leaves me...a little stuck. Attempts to simply
> > use the old li
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:22:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 07:04:19PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > There's an email in your inbox explaining why I can't co, ci, up, pg or pe, and
> > what you have to do to restore my ability to do so, remember? :)
>
> You also to
On Thursday 21 August 2003 11:06, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:22:47PM +0200, Frank Murphy wrote:
> > I saw that this bug had been marked fixed, so I went to try it out, but
> > it seemed not to be fixed. So I checked out the new scripts and the
> > manpages, and I think may
Your message dated Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:41:22 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#206524: xserver-xfree86: XF86Config-4 is overwritten even when it
is not managed by debconf
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the probl
Author: branden
Date: 2003-08-21 16:41:10 -0500 (Thu, 21 Aug 2003)
New Revision: 421
Modified:
trunk/debian/xserver-xfree86.preinst.in
Log:
debian/xserver-xfree86.preinst.in: (cosmetic) clarify a comment
Modified: trunk/debian/xserver-xfree86.preinst.in
===
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:44:26AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Advantages:
> - won't break anything that relies on X being started from a particular
>directory
You spent a lot of time in the bug logs of #138195 arguing that the
chdir() before the execv() would have exactly this advantage, didn'
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 01:49:04PM -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
> The backwards incompatibility of libc in unstable combined with my use
> of a commercial X server leaves me...a little stuck. Attempts to simply
> use the old libraries by overriding LD_LIBRARY_PATH have failed. Another
> suggestion wa
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:36:14PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> here is a patch i use for my multi-user workstation with multiple
> monitors/mice/keyboards. it limits the reset of the pci bus to
> one card with a given busID, if a busID is specified with the
> -prefbusid X:X:X option. if no suc
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 07:04:19PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> There's an email in your inbox explaining why I can't co, ci, up, pg or pe,
> and
> what you have to do to restore my ability to do so, remember? :)
You also told me you couldn't do any of that anyway, and the fix you
asked me implem
Author: branden
Date: 2003-08-21 16:20:05 -0500 (Thu, 21 Aug 2003)
New Revision: 420
Modified:
trunk/debian/changelog
trunk/debian/local/Xsession.5
trunk/debian/local/Xsession.options.5
Log:
debian/local/Xsession{,.options}.5:
- further clarify the X session startup procedure in the man
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:22:47PM +0200, Frank Murphy wrote:
> I saw that this bug had been marked fixed, so I went to try it out, but it
> seemed not to be fixed. So I checked out the new scripts and the manpages,
> and I think maybe it was my confusion about what was supposed to happen.
>
> I
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 206620 xserver-xfree86
Bug#206620: XFree Crash
Warning: Unknown package 'xfree'
Bug reassigned from package `xfree' to `xserver-xfree86'.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracki
OoO La nuit ayant déjà recouvert d'encre ce jour du jeudi 21 août
2003, vers 23:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System)
disait:
> Okay, if your analysis is correct then there MUST exist the following
> file:
> /etc/X11/XF86Config-4.dpkg-old
Yes, it is here.
> You still had xserver-xf
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You spent a lot of time in the bug logs of #138195 arguing that the
> chdir() before the execv() would have exactly this advantage, didn't
> you?
>
> If so, how is this an advantage over the current implementation?
Eh? I haven't weighed in on this is
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 11:25:32AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 02:18:59PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 09:57:09PM -0500, X Strike Force SVN Admin wrote:
> > > - don't show the user messages telling him we're not doing anything
> > Women use
On Thursday 21 August 2003 11:06, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:22:47PM +0200, Frank Murphy wrote:
> > I saw that this bug had been marked fixed, so I went to try it out, but
> > it seemed not to be fixed. So I checked out the new scripts and the
> > manpages, and I think may
Author: branden
Date: 2003-08-21 16:41:10 -0500 (Thu, 21 Aug 2003)
New Revision: 421
Modified:
trunk/debian/xserver-xfree86.preinst.in
Log:
debian/xserver-xfree86.preinst.in: (cosmetic) clarify a comment
Modified: trunk/debian/xserver-xfree86.preinst.in
===
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:44:26AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Advantages:
> - won't break anything that relies on X being started from a particular
>directory
You spent a lot of time in the bug logs of #138195 arguing that the
chdir() before the execv() would have exactly this advantage, didn'
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 01:49:04PM -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
> The backwards incompatibility of libc in unstable combined with my use
> of a commercial X server leaves me...a little stuck. Attempts to simply
> use the old libraries by overriding LD_LIBRARY_PATH have failed. Another
> suggestion wa
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 03:36:14PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> here is a patch i use for my multi-user workstation with multiple
> monitors/mice/keyboards. it limits the reset of the pci bus to
> one card with a given busID, if a busID is specified with the
> -prefbusid X:X:X option. if no suc
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 07:04:19PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> There's an email in your inbox explaining why I can't co, ci, up, pg or pe, and
> what you have to do to restore my ability to do so, remember? :)
You also told me you couldn't do any of that anyway, and the fix you
asked me implement
Author: branden
Date: 2003-08-21 16:20:05 -0500 (Thu, 21 Aug 2003)
New Revision: 420
Modified:
trunk/debian/changelog
trunk/debian/local/Xsession.5
trunk/debian/local/Xsession.options.5
Log:
debian/local/Xsession{,.options}.5:
- further clarify the X session startup procedure in the man
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:22:47PM +0200, Frank Murphy wrote:
> I saw that this bug had been marked fixed, so I went to try it out, but it
> seemed not to be fixed. So I checked out the new scripts and the manpages,
> and I think maybe it was my confusion about what was supposed to happen.
>
> I
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 11:25:32AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 02:18:59PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 09:57:09PM -0500, X Strike Force SVN Admin wrote:
> > > - don't show the user messages telling him we're not doing anything
> > Women use
Author: branden
Date: 2003-08-21 13:57:03 -0500 (Thu, 21 Aug 2003)
New Revision: 419
Modified:
branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/TODO
Log:
debian/TODO: add 2 more items; regressions in the XFree86 X server from
4.2.1
Modified: branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/TODO
=
Author: branden
Date: 2003-08-21 13:25:35 -0500 (Thu, 21 Aug 2003)
New Revision: 418
Modified:
trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
debian/changelog: fix another typo in the 4.2.1-10 changelog entry
Modified: trunk/debian/changelog
===
--
Author: branden
Date: 2003-08-21 13:57:03 -0500 (Thu, 21 Aug 2003)
New Revision: 419
Modified:
branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/TODO
Log:
debian/TODO: add 2 more items; regressions in the XFree86 X server from
4.2.1
Modified: branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/TODO
=
Author: branden
Date: 2003-08-21 13:25:35 -0500 (Thu, 21 Aug 2003)
New Revision: 418
Modified:
trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
debian/changelog: fix another typo in the 4.2.1-10 changelog entry
Modified: trunk/debian/changelog
===
--
I saw that this bug had been marked fixed, so I went to try it out, but it
seemed not to be fixed. So I checked out the new scripts and the manpages,
and I think maybe it was my confusion about what was supposed to happen.
It seems that if a program is specified as the startup program, no user
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.3.0-0pre1v1
Severity: normal
Tags: experimental
The Chips&Tech driver doesn't work with XVideo: xvinfo says XVideo
is supported, mplayer and xine open successfully an XVideo window
but display only garbage in it (looks like they display RGB instead
of YUV, or t
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 11:25:32AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 02:18:59PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 09:57:09PM -0500, X Strike Force SVN Admin wrote:
> > > - don't show the user messages telling him we're not doing anything
> >
> > Women
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.2.1-10
Severity: important
Tags: sid
Hello !
I have just upgraded the X server to the latest version and my XF86Config-4
was overwritten even if it was not managed by debconf (in previous upgrade,
I was asked if this file has to be overwritten by a new one or n
I hate to beat a dead horse here, but it seems like the "right" fix to
this problem is to use the symlink as it is intended, which is to say
calling execv on it and letting the kernel resolve it.
I understand the desire to make sure the symlink doesn't point back to
the wrapper, but you can still
I saw that this bug had been marked fixed, so I went to try it out, but it
seemed not to be fixed. So I checked out the new scripts and the manpages,
and I think maybe it was my confusion about what was supposed to happen.
It seems that if a program is specified as the startup program, no user
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.3.0-0pre1v1
Severity: normal
Tags: experimental
The Chips&Tech driver doesn't work with XVideo: xvinfo says XVideo
is supported, mplayer and xine open successfully an XVideo window
but display only garbage in it (looks like they display RGB instead
of YUV, or t
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 11:25:32AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 02:18:59PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 09:57:09PM -0500, X Strike Force SVN Admin wrote:
> > > - don't show the user messages telling him we're not doing anything
> >
> > Women
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.2.1-10
Severity: important
Tags: sid
Hello !
I have just upgraded the X server to the latest version and my XF86Config-4
was overwritten even if it was not managed by debconf (in previous upgrade,
I was asked if this file has to be overwritten by a new one or n
I hate to beat a dead horse here, but it seems like the "right" fix to
this problem is to use the symlink as it is intended, which is to say
calling execv on it and letting the kernel resolve it.
I understand the desire to make sure the symlink doesn't point back to
the wrapper, but you can still
56 matches
Mail list logo
