Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-10
Severity: critical
File: /usr/X11R6/bin/XFree86
Justification: breaks the whole system
This is a fresh install of sarge. My keyboard works fine until either
GDM or KDM (I've tried both) start. After that the keyboard is
useless.
-- Package-sp
hi
sorry, i thought i had added a retraction: it turned out that all it
was that after the upgrade it took much longer to start up (seems to be
a kernel problem: i'll have to rebuild the kernel).
thx,
hs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
do you have an HWcursor setting in /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 ?
Package: xdm
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
when setting up a diskless terminal with a shared read-only root
filesystem, it is very difficult to start a different display manager on
each diskless terminal.
if /etc/init.d/xdm (and gdm, kdm, wdm) were patched to check that
HEED_DEFAULT_DISPLAY_MANA
package xserver-xfree86
tags 119474 unreproducible
quit
Richard Parry (submitter) told me that he do not have this hardware any
more (geforce2 mx).
The report date back from 2001. I do not know if the issue is relevant
any more (nv/xserver always crashing when xscreensaver use opengl).
Ciao
Alba
Call us on : l8OO 0rder N0W
or visit: http://www.vaigra.net
Regards
Tamatha Merrill
- Original Message -
From: 6682-maintonly
To: Tamatha Merrill
Sent: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 04:15:02 +0100
Subject: is out of fa,shion, find out _why
more? http://www.vaigra.net/D.php
You will find this
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> package xserver-xfree86
Ignoring bugs not assigned to: xserver-xfree86
> tags 119474 unreproducible
Bug#119474: xserver-xfree86: [nv] server sometimes crashes, sometimes hangs
when xscreensaver uses GL screenhacks on GeForce2 MX rev 161
Tags were: ups
Introducing the amazing BodyWrap.
Want to be thin fast? Look no further.
BodyWrap guarantees you'll lose 6-8 inches in HOURS!
Stop waiting months to see results and begin 2005 a new you.
http://deter.clikbusiness.info
mushy zuz tammany hrs
you'd mix olden fbn campground aa ottawa cj sculptural
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.3.0.1
I can't run my Diamond Stealth II S220 (Verite 2100 chipset) card in X.
It does with either the SVGA drivers (from version 3.x) or the VESA drivers.
Both drivers are unoptimized and I get atrocious graphics performance using
any graphical applications in X
Hi there;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi a "few" years ago you report a bug problem with geforce2 mx
and the nv driver.
Can you still repoduce the issue with latest xfree86-server ?
Heh.
I don't have a GeForce2MX anymore :) You can probably close this bug
as irrelevant or non-reproducab
Hi
do you have an HWcursor setting in /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 ?
if yes, does it start if you comment it ?
Can you also send the file "log" genereated by :
$ exec 3<>log /usr/share/bug/xserver-xfree86 &
this will include the X last log, the configuration file, and
checks results to know if your
Package: xbase-clients
Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-10
When trying to print the keymap for my current xkb settings I was faced with
a segfault as I ran xkbprint. The problem is that if the XkbSymbols setting
in
/etc/X11/XF86Config-4 is too long a sprintf() overruns a preallocated buffer
used when writing
Kudzu could do the detection in a interactive and non interactive
way already.
I guess it only need to be feed with scripts . I have not checked
the code but having used it under redhat 7 and mandrake 6 it was
detecting video card changes well and fixed X config correctly.
Maybe we can reuse the en
I am not part of the X strike force, though i debug X
configurations for quite some time.
Would you mind providing seom more details ?
>From your report in the bug:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=289328
i saw an error message:
(II) TDFX(0): [dri] VideoRAM = 16384, VirtualXres =
Hi this is a followup for :
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=291404
this bug is "fixed" regarding X. The DRI session works well. Only
that while using kdm , the default dri session is unknow if we
don't use different configurations for each servers.
The raimining issue is that the
On 2005-02-12 03:18:26 -0800, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> + Fix a regression from patch #197 which disowned the selection
> if it was scrolled, e.g., by the user pressing return at the
> bottom of the screen. (Closes: #277832, #291787)
Bug 277832 was not about a regression a
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 16:48 -0500, X Strike Force SVN Repository Admin
>
> +Try to reproduce the problem by running the troublesome application
> from
> +a shell prompt in a terminal window with the following environment
> variables
> +set:
> +LIBGL_ALWAYS_INDIRECT=1; export LIBG
This is a followup for:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=234067
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=245026
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=279940
the fact that xrestop does not show all clients memory usage. It
especially does not cound cached bitmap.
Hi a "few" years ago you report a bug problem with geforce2 mx
and the nv driver.
Can you still repoduce the issue with latest xfree86-server ?
The bug report was:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=119474
Thanks
Alban
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
This is a followup for :
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=204603
You reported issue while upgrading from woody to sarge.
The X server was segfaulting with the nv driver.
Does the segfault still happens with latest xfree packages ?
Your XF86Config-4 extracts had those lines:
Se
Contents of /var/lib/xfree86/X.roster:
xserver-xfree86
/etc/X11/X target does not match checksum in /var/lib/xfree86/X.md5sum.
X server symlink status:
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 2002-07-16 23:22 /etc/X11/X -> /usr/bin/X11/XFree86
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1745740 2004-12-15 21:19 /usr/bin/X11/XFre
Author: branden
Date: 2005-02-12 14:56:32 -0500 (Sat, 12 Feb 2005)
New Revision: 2193
Modified:
NEWS.xhtml
Log:
Announce release of 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11.
Modified: NEWS.xhtml
===
--- NEWS.xhtml 2005-02-12 19:53:57 UTC (rev 2192)
+++
Author: branden
Date: 2005-02-12 14:53:57 -0500 (Sat, 12 Feb 2005)
New Revision: 2192
Modified:
trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
(cosmetic) Fix missing quotation mark in historical changelog entry.
Modified: trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
===
Author: branden
Date: 2005-02-12 14:52:58 -0500 (Sat, 12 Feb 2005)
New Revision: 2191
Modified:
trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml
Log:
(cosmetic) Fix extraneous word.
(cosmetic) Wrap long lines where possible.
Modified: trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
==
Author: branden
Date: 2005-02-12 14:48:11 -0500 (Sat, 12 Feb 2005)
New Revision: 2190
Modified:
trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
trunk/debian/TODO
trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
Inaugurate 4.3.0.dfsg.1-12 development, which may end up being xorg-x11r6
development -- we'll see.
Modified: trunk/debia
Author: branden
Date: 2005-02-12 14:41:20 -0500 (Sat, 12 Feb 2005)
New Revision: 2189
Modified:
trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
Merge revisions 2186:HEAD from branches/4.3.0/sid.
Modified: trunk/debian/changelog
===
--- trunk/debian/
Author: svn: Berkeley DB error while opening 'strings' table for filesystem
/var/lib/svn/xfree86/db:
Date: Cannot allocate memory
New Revision: 2188
Modified:
Log:
svn: Berkeley DB error while opening 'strings' table for filesystem
/var/lib/svn/xfree86/db:
Cannot allocate memory
svn
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 09:30:13AM +0100, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I just compiled xterm, version "XFree86 4.2.99.903(174)" and can't
> reproduce it with that.
>
> The version that crashes is "XTerm(197)".
>
> The me-compiled version is not stripped.
>
> Instead of crashing, the me-compiled versio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
The following was cross-posted on debian-user
For some reason, the /etc/X11/xsession (4.3.0.dfsg.1-10)) stuff isn't
running. For example, the ssh agent isn't started.
To test this, I modified the file /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc as follows:
#!/bin/sh
# $
Eh, I have found your message in the SPAM-Folder of my ISP !!!
Am 2004-12-24 03:32:15, schrieb Thomas Winischhofer:
>
> Michelle Konzack wrote:
> >(Requires the PCI module SIS5513 to activate the NIC SIS900 which is
> > crap and WOODY can not be installed on it because the missing SIS5513
> >in
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#287612: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#286268: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#286164: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#286164: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#286068: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#285396: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#285222: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#283764: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#279252: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#279252: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#277699: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#277699: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#266274: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#233551: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#253480: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#229850: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#217505: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#213076: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#141347: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#173565: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#232357: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Accepted:
lbxproxy_4.3.0.dfsg.1-11_powerpc.deb
to pool/main/x/xfree86/lbxproxy_4.3.0.dfsg.1-11_powerpc.deb
libdps-dev_4.3.0.dfsg.1-11_powerpc.deb
to pool/main/x/xfree86/libdps-dev_4.3.0.dfsg.1-11_powerpc.deb
libdps1-dbg_4.3.0.dfsg.1-11_powerpc.deb
to pool/main/x/xfree86/libdps1-dbg_4.3.0.dfs
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#267503: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#277832: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#279252: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#282760: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#284025: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#286164: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#286164: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#286181: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#286181: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#286181: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#286181: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#286268: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#289508: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#290935: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#291722: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#291787: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
Your message dated Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:03:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#294320: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:14:27 -0500
Source: xfree86
Binary: libx11-6-dbg libxtst6-dbg xserver-common xlibs-static-dev libxp6-dbg
xbase-clients xlibmesa3-dbg libxtrap6-dbg xfonts-75dpi libxt6 libice6-dbg xmh
libxaw6-dbg x-dev libxv1 libx
xfree86_4.3.0.dfsg.1-11_powerpc.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
xfree86_4.3.0.dfsg.1-11.dsc
xfree86_4.3.0.dfsg.1-11.diff.gz
pm-dev_4.3.0.dfsg.1-11_all.deb
x-dev_4.3.0.dfsg.1-11_all.deb
xfonts-100dpi_4.3.0.dfsg.1-11_all.deb
xfonts-100dpi-transcoded_4.3.0.
Probably you are the uploader of the following file(s) in
the Debian upload queue directory:
xfree86_4.3.0.dfsg.1-11.diff.gz
xfree86_4.3.0.dfsg.1-11.dsc
This looks like an upload, but a .changes file is missing, so the job
cannot be processed.
If no .changes file arrives within 23:24:39, the f
Software 4 u... durkin
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 07/02/2005
I just compiled xterm, version "XFree86 4.2.99.903(174)" and can't
reproduce it with that.
The version that crashes is "XTerm(197)".
The me-compiled version is not stripped.
Instead of crashing, the me-compiled version DOES pop up an TEK
window.
Justin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.8.10
> tags 294878 upstream
Bug#294878: xterm: segmentation fault NOT IN XawTreeForceLayout()
There were no tags set.
Tags added: upstream
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Pleas
74 matches
Mail list logo
