https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241219
--- Comment #7 from John <jlma...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Guido Falsi from comment #6) I am not being defensive. I am trying to ensure facts as stated without having to cover all the possibilities covered in validating the bug as a bug. You have implied in manner you reply that the facts were not as stated or such. That then forces me to repeat what I have stated and state more than I need to state for the bug in order to keep the issue focused. I do not write code for XFCE nor do FreeBSD packaging. That said if something is wrong with packaging of the port, or related port, or with change management, or configuration files, documentation, et al then these and similar are bugs and not issues. Issues are about matters where the current behaviour of something that is working as intended wishes to be changed in some manner. Unwanted or unexpected behaviour can be a bug or an issue depending on context of if intended behaviour or not intended behaviour. It is not a correct assumption to make that there is more than one bug simply because in this bug instance the same incorrect symptoms occur. The very nature of the screensaver function implies there may be common code both of these screensavers use, such as a library, that may be where the bug is. For example the suggestion as a possible port for cause of the bug may be x11/xorg-libraries because the upgrade indicated "(direct dependency changed: libXScrnSaver)" which means that x11/libXScrnSaver may be the source of the bug. I do not know where the bug is, let alone if code, packaging, configuration, et al. Reinstalling various packages to see if the bug goes away is not an approach to solving the bug. All that does is allow the bug to persist and perhaps get worse in doing so. Reinstalling can itself cause new or worse bug, that by rights should not occur. They do and often due to underlying bugs not being addressed that start to compound the bugs on top of bugs. Added to this due to how packages are created and made reinstalling is not the same as when installing base packages initially. That means there is a much wider scope of indirect packages in scope that is makes the idea of reinstalling a major issue as that may compound and mask the current bug as a result of other unknown and unrelated bugs. I understand you do not have enough information to identify the bug. I understand "new library versions have slight incompatibilities or internal structures change that software inappropriately access directly or other such things". I believe I indicated this in my last reply comment #4. I have been in that situation many times professionally of not enough information to identify a bug and have to find the bug even when engineering or development teams says there is no bug once I have identified and duplicated the bug more times than you can imagine. The ps command you asked to be down would not show anything related to the screensavers running as first I know and only had one enabled. Second I disabled both screensavers so my system does not lock me out forcing me to reboot or power cycle the system. The "issue looks to me like a possible case of misalignment brought by incremental updates with time" may be the cause of the bug, or as all too often occurs there is a difference between the environment the test is being attempted on vs the system that has the problem. Again, I have been there many many times professionally. The task is to find the difference which tends to lead to being able to duplicate the bug. Again I have been there professionally many many times and an area I am very good at. I have often never been able to test on the live system to figure out if the firmware and/or OS are the cause of the bug as often these are many miles or many km away. So I have to figure out how to find the information I need to duplicate the bug using my skills, knowledge and creative approaches. This bug has a known reference point. The state when the system is booted and only the XFCE DE is started (in my case via CLI startx) and just leave the XFCE desktop as started to sit until one of the two screensavers takes effect. That will be the same no matter which screen saver or no screensaver is active. That is consistent and same and for now no FreeBSD updates will be done until this bug is resolved. If there is a missing element of packaging that means there is a difference in version of library or such then that needs to be identified. I already know, but have not reported yet, there are a few other packaging problems that result in applications not working that have no relationship to this bug at all. There are at least three bugs of this type outstanding for me to log still. If there is a library that is not at the right version as source of this issue then that needs to be identified as that means likely means there is a missing dependency in the packaging, ergo bug in the packaging. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ freebsd-xfce@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-xfce To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-xfce-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
