On Sat, 2004-04-24 at 02:02, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 April 2004 19:49, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 04:17, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > I tend to agree. I don't think there's any list of requested modules
> > > maintained anywhere. tdfx does xf86LoaderCheckSymbol("DRI
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 19:49, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 04:17, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > I tend to agree. I don't think there's any list of requested modules
> > maintained anywhere. tdfx does xf86LoaderCheckSymbol("DRIQueryVersion")
> > to see if libdri.a loaded though, whic
On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 04:17, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Monday 19 April 2004 20:08, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 02:13, ajax wrote:
> > > All drivers except savage emit the "Direct rendering disabled" message as
> > > an informational message; savage makes it an error. Technically
On Monday 19 April 2004 20:08, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 02:13, ajax wrote:
> > All drivers except savage emit the "Direct rendering disabled" message as
> > an informational message; savage makes it an error. Technically it's not
> > an error, since the server can continue, but
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 02:13, ajax wrote:
> All drivers except savage emit the "Direct rendering disabled" message as an
> informational message; savage makes it an error. Technically it's not an
> error, since the server can continue, but it should probably be at least a
> warning. This would
All drivers except savage emit the "Direct rendering disabled" message as an
informational message; savage makes it an error. Technically it's not an
error, since the server can continue, but it should probably be at least a
warning. This would make troubleshooting easier, because users know t
