Hi Kurt, On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 08:20:32PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > Hi, > > I've seen that you've set the severity to important again. Can you > please explain why? > > Why i think this should have a higher severity is: > - X crashed at something that I consider to be a normal use case. > - When it crashes, you basicly can't use the computer anymore > and it needs to be restarted the hard way. > - I'm not the only having the problem.
Sorry, I've been waiting for your mail to hit my mailbox so I could reply to it properly. Stupid slow bts... The standard for grave X bugs is very high. Your bug only affects certain hardware (we can't fully support all hardware) and under certain conditions (they might be normal use cases for you, but not in general). For example, many XSF members have intel chips and none of us is having this issue. Yes, this is a very important bug to fix, but it doesn't meet the standards the team has been using since before I started working on X. If you look at all the important severity bugs, they should be very similar to this one. That said, let's try to actually fix the problem. The best thing to do would be to get a full backtrace. You'll want to build the server and driver with debugging symbols enabled. These are stock debhelper packages, so building with DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS set to nostrip (as per dh_strip(1)) will work. Then if you follow the basic instructions at http://wiki.x.org/wiki/DebuggingTheXserver you can get the backtraces. We should be able to go from there. Sorry we don't have -dbg packages, but several people vetoed them as archive bloat, although I'll probably be making a server one for etch. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
