Re: Xfree86 4.4 vs Xorg Wrap-up

[Daniel Stone]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 07:44:49AM -0500, Francois Isabelle wrote:
> Is that what's happening ?
> 1 - XFree86 changed licensing, which introduced some GPL compatibility
> issues and some deviations to debian DFSG(debian free software
> guidelines).
> 2 - Some are arguing that the new licensing is NOT GPL incompatible, but
> nobody argues that it is not deviating from DFSG
> 3 - Xorg forked XFree86 due to these licensing considerations
> 4 - Debian will NOT include XFree86 4.4 components 
> 5 - Other Linux's distributions MIGTH include Xfree86 4.4
> 6 - Other Linux's distributions WILL include Xorg
> 7 - Debian MIGHT include Xorg, MIGHT include XFree86 4.4 in non-free or
> similar

Debian will include freedesktop.org's xlibs/xserver/et al, assuming
nothing spectacular happens.

> 8 - End users / developpers / distribution packagers WILL end up
> confused, free software activist will end up frustrated and I WILL NOT
> understand why this FORK took place anyway.

It's quite simple: XFree86 made their software unsustainable with the
new license.

>   - I'm not sure they have sufficient resources to provide the quality
> level we've come to expect from the XFree86 team.

I think they have better resources than XFree86.

>   - I think a FORK is a really bad thing especially on projects
> that large, how can contributors enhance BOTH projects... wasted work I
> beleive.

That's your opinion.

>   - Even if free software is taking up over proprietary stuff, there are
> external forces that are hitting free software day after day, why MUST
> the free software community hit itself from the INSIDE ?

I don't know. Ask those who decided to change the licence.

> Please, correct me if I'm wrong. But don't spend too much time on point
> '8' , I know I'm right about this one.

OK, I won't bother arguing. Saves me time anyway.

And the disk-space issue is fixed.

-- 
Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#238407: XFree86 crashes on PPC in 0x1072260c in AccessXCancelRepeatKey (xkbi=0x0, key=64 '@') at xkbAccessX.c:387

[Don Armstrong]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I will update with results shortly.

Well, the patch works and appears to do the job, and doesn't appear to
cause any other side effects (like anal leakage or cerebral
hemmorage.)


Don Armstrong

-- 
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired
signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are
not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is
not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers,
the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a
way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is
humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
 -- Dwight Eisenhower, April 16, 1953

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 07:21:10PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> XFree86 4.3 should be in as soon as it builds and is uploaded on s390. 
> There's no other new upstream version IMHO worth actually delaying the
> release for.

XFree86 4.3.0 is now only being help up by weird stuff I don't fully
understand:

Checking xfree86

* trying to update xfree86 from 4.2.1-12.1 to 4.3.0-7 (candidate is
  8 days old)
* Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on
  alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed)[1]

Checking sppc

* trying to update sppc from 1.0.1-6 to 1.0.1-8 (candidate is 0 days
  old)
* sppc is only 0 days old. It must be 10 days to go in.
* sppc is waiting for xfree86
  o Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on
alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed[2]

Checking tulip

* trying to update tulip from 1.2.5-3 to 1.2.5-4 (candidate is 23
  days old)
* tulip is waiting for xfree86
  o Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on
alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed)
* Updating tulip makes 1 non-depending packages uninstallable on
  alpha: tulip[3]

If someone who's better at reading these tea leaves can tell me what I
can do to help move this along, please let me know.

[1] http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=xfree86
[2] http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=sppc
[3] http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=tulip

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux   |   "Bother," said Pooh, as he was
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   assimilated by the Borg.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)

[Daniel Stone]

On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:40:00AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 07:21:10PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > XFree86 4.3 should be in as soon as it builds and is uploaded on s390. 
> > There's no other new upstream version IMHO worth actually delaying the
> > release for.
> 
> XFree86 4.3.0 is now only being help up by weird stuff I don't fully
> understand:
> 
> Checking xfree86
> 
> * trying to update xfree86 from 4.2.1-12.1 to 4.3.0-7 (candidate is
>   8 days old)
> * Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on
>   alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed)[1]
> 
> Checking sppc
> 
> * trying to update sppc from 1.0.1-6 to 1.0.1-8 (candidate is 0 days
>   old)
> * sppc is only 0 days old. It must be 10 days to go in.
> * sppc is waiting for xfree86
>   o Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on
> alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed[2]
> 
> Checking tulip
> 
> * trying to update tulip from 1.2.5-3 to 1.2.5-4 (candidate is 23
>   days old)
> * tulip is waiting for xfree86
>   o Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on
> alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed)
> * Updating tulip makes 1 non-depending packages uninstallable on
>   alpha: tulip[3]
> 
> If someone who's better at reading these tea leaves can tell me what I
> can do to help move this along, please let me know.

vorlon has hinted the three together, so they should all progress in
just fine. AFAICT, it actually progressed in with this testing run, but
my update_output-fu is ageing.

Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which
I promptly downgraded; if it didn't go in today, I expect that will be
because of the new sppc upload, making it a transitive problem.

-- 
Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: r1195 - trunk/debian

[X Strike Force SVN Repository Admin]

Author: branden
Date: 2004-03-27 03:06:41 -0500 (Sat, 27 Mar 2004)
New Revision: 1195

Modified:
   trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
Fix typo.


Modified: trunk/debian/changelog
===
--- trunk/debian/changelog  2004-03-27 00:54:22 UTC (rev 1194)
+++ trunk/debian/changelog  2004-03-27 08:06:41 UTC (rev 1195)
@@ -97,11 +97,11 @@
 Clarify and improve related patch annotation.  Also, fix the Imake
 configuration for Debian GNU/Linux, the Hurd, and GNU/FreeBSD to not force
 BuildXft1Library to YES unconditionally.  These changes resolve a FTBFS in
-environments where libext-dev is not installed, since the Xft1 library was
-getting gratuitously built during the debugging server build, and couldn't
-find the Xext library to link against.  As a minor bonus, this should
-speed the build up a little, since a library that isn't needed is no
-longer being built.
+environments where lixbext-dev is not installed, since the Xft1 library
+was getting gratuitously built during the debugging server build, and
+couldn't find the Xext library to link against.  As a minor bonus, this
+should speed the build up a little, since a library that isn't needed is
+no longer being built.
 
  -- Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:13:31 -0500
 

Bug#234067: xserver-xfree86: memory leak in xserver

[Cameron Kerr]

Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.3.0-2
Severity: normal
Followup-For: Bug #234067

I've had this problem now for a some time, probably since 4.3 came about
in Debian.

The machine is not used often (at least, not via X). It stays logged in
for days/weeks at a time. It runs the following GUI programs

Mozilla-firebird/fox
xterm
fluxbox and a few monitoring applets
a Perl/Tk monitoring program I have written.
xmms

Top is currently reporting the following information. (I sorted it by
memory, XFree86 is the only one taking up all this memory).

  PID USER  PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+  COMMAND
  824 root   5 -10 1547m 671m  84m S  6.0 66.4  74:53.90 XFree86

By this stage, it's been logged in about 28 days. My machine has a gig
of memory, and as I'm writing this, its getting to be a little sluggish.

-- Package-specific info:
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV18 [GeForce4 MX 440 AGP 
8x] (rev a2)
01:00.0 Class 0300: 10de:0181 (rev a2)

# XF86Config-4 (XFree86 X Window System server configuration file)
#
# This file was generated by dexconf, the Debian X Configuration tool, using
# values from the debconf database.
#
# Edit this file with caution, and see the XF86Config-4 manual page.
# (Type "man XF86Config-4" at the shell prompt.)
#
# This file is automatically updated on xserver-xfree86 package upgrades *only*
# if it has not been modified since the last upgrade of the xserver-xfree86
# package.
#
# If you have edited this file but would like it to be automatically updated
# again, run the following commands as root:
#
#   cp /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 /etc/X11/XF86Config-4.custom
#   md5sum /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 > /var/lib/xfree86/XF86Config-4.md5sum
#   dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86

Section "Files"
FontPath"unix/:7100"# local font server
# if the local font server has problems, we can fall back on these
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/misc"
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/cyrillic"
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi/:unscaled"
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi/:unscaled"
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/Type1"
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/CID"
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/Speedo"
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi"
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi"
EndSection

Section "Module"
Load"GLcore"
Load"bitmap"
Load"dbe"
Load"ddc"
Load"dri"
Load"extmod"
Load"freetype"
Load"glx"
Load"int10"
Load"record"
Load"speedo"
Load"type1"
Load"vbe"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Identifier  "Generic Keyboard"
Driver  "keyboard"
Option  "CoreKeyboard"
Option  "XkbRules"  "xfree86"
Option  "XkbModel"  "pc104"
Option  "XkbLayout" "us"
Option  "XkbVariant""us"
Option  "XkbOptions""altwin:meta_win"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Identifier  "Configured Mouse"
Driver  "mouse"
Option  "CorePointer"
Option  "Device""/dev/psaux"
Option  "Protocol"  "ImPS/2"
Option  "ZAxisMapping"  "4 5"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Identifier  "Generic Mouse"
Driver  "mouse"
Option  "SendCoreEvents""true"
Option  "Device""/dev/input/mice"
Option  "Protocol"  "ImPS/2"
Option  "ZAxisMapping"  "4 5"
EndSection

Section "Device"
Identifier  "GeForce4 MX 440"
Driver  "nv"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
Identifier  "Digital 21 inch"
HorizSync   30-94
VertRefresh 50-75
Option  "DPMS"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
Identifier  "Default Screen"
Device  "GeForce4 MX 440"
Monitor "Digital 21 inch"
DefaultDepth24
SubSection "Display"
Depth   1
Modes   "1600x1200" "1280x1024" "1280x960" "1152x864" 
"1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth   4
Modes   "1600x1200" "1280x1024" "1280x960" "1152x864" 
"1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth   8
Modes   "1600x1200" "1280x1024" "1280x960" "1152x864" 
"1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Depth   15
Modes   "1600x1200" "1280x1024" "1280x960" "1152x864" 
"1024

Re: XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:40:00AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 07:21:10PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > XFree86 4.3 should be in as soon as it builds and is uploaded on s390. 
> > > There's no other new upstream version IMHO worth actually delaying the
> > > release for.

> > XFree86 4.3.0 is now only being help up by weird stuff I don't fully
> > understand:

> > Checking xfree86

> > * trying to update xfree86 from 4.2.1-12.1 to 4.3.0-7 (candidate is
> >   8 days old)
> > * Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on
> >   alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed)[1]

> > Checking sppc

> > * trying to update sppc from 1.0.1-6 to 1.0.1-8 (candidate is 0 days
> >   old)
> > * sppc is only 0 days old. It must be 10 days to go in.
> > * sppc is waiting for xfree86
> >   o Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on
> > alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed[2]

> > Checking tulip

> > * trying to update tulip from 1.2.5-3 to 1.2.5-4 (candidate is 23
> >   days old)
> > * tulip is waiting for xfree86
> >   o Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on
> > alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed)
> > * Updating tulip makes 1 non-depending packages uninstallable on
> >   alpha: tulip[3]

> > If someone who's better at reading these tea leaves can tell me what I
> > can do to help move this along, please let me know.

> vorlon has hinted the three together, so they should all progress in
> just fine. AFAICT, it actually progressed in with this testing run, but
> my update_output-fu is ageing.

> Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which
> I promptly downgraded; if it didn't go in today, I expect that will be
> because of the new sppc upload, making it a transitive problem.

Yes, the sppc upload was impeccably timed.  Rather than letting more
packages build up behind xfree86 in the queue for the next 10 days (X is
at the base of 3 of the 4 top blocking issues on
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/toplist.html), I've hinted sppc for removal
from testing on Sunday; it should make its own way back in 10 days
hence.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#180938: marked as done (xserver-xfree86: [ati/radeon] no DPMS support on digital flat panels)

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 07:48:05AM -0800, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> *** xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon_driver.c.orig   Sun Feb 
>  9 20:19:34 2003
> --- xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon_driver.cSun Feb 
>  9 21:50:06 2003
> ***
> *** 4579,4582 
> --- 4579,4594 
>   OUTREGP(RADEON_CRTC_EXT_CNTL, mask, ~mask);
>   break;
>   }
> + if (info->DisplayType == MT_DFP) {
> +   switch (PowerManagementMode) {
> +   case DPMSModeOn:
> + OUTREG(RADEON_FP_GEN_CNTL, INREG(RADEON_FP_GEN_CNTL) | (RADEON_FP_FPON 
> | RADEON_FP_TMDS_EN));
> + break;
> +   case DPMSModeStandby:
> +   case DPMSModeSuspend:
> +   case DPMSModeOff:
> + OUTREG(RADEON_FP_GEN_CNTL, INREG(RADEON_FP_GEN_CNTL) & ~(RADEON_FP_FPON 
> | RADEON_FP_TMDS_EN));
> + break;
> +   }
> + }
>   }
[...]
> This bug report was fixed in very early versions of 4.3.x -
> 4.3.0-0ds3v2, I believe.

The DPMS code in radeon_driver.c doesn't look much like the above
anymore.  However, it does appear to handle DPMSModeOn and DPMSModeOff
for info->DisplayType == MT_DFP, as the above does, so I concur with the
closing.

It does continue to have a comment:

/* TODO: additional handling for LCD ? */

Bug submitter, please feel free to followup to this bug and confirm that
you see the fix.  You will need to use xserver-xfree86 4.3.0-7 from
unstable, of course.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  Religion is excellent stuff for
Debian GNU/Linux   |  keeping common people quiet.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  -- Napoleon Bonaparte
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: ~20 second delay starting xdm

[Branden Robinson]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 12:30:00AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> >> Upon starting xdm, I notice a delay, and several messages like
> >> Skipping "/usr/X11R6/lib/modules/extensions/libGLcore.a:m_debug_clip.o":  
> >> No symbols found
> >> Skipping "/usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libspeedo.a:spencode.o":  No 
> >> symbols found
> >> Warning: font renderer for ".pcf" already registered at priority 0
> 
> M> These have been around for a while, and they're still as harmless as ever.
> 
> OK, but how about the new ~20 second delay from the starting of X when the
> screen goes black, till one finally gets the xdm login screen?  With
> no per-line time stamps in /var/log/xdm.log, who knows just what line
> there is responsible, if any?

Turn on xdm's debugging and run it interactively; perhaps you will see
which operation(s) take a lot of time.

The manpage describes how to do this.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  Measure with micrometer,
Debian GNU/Linux   |  mark with chalk,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  cut with axe,
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  hope like hell.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: r1196 - in trunk/debian: . patches

[X Strike Force SVN Repository Admin]

Author: branden
Date: 2004-03-27 05:04:26 -0500 (Sat, 27 Mar 2004)
New Revision: 1196

Modified:
   trunk/debian/changelog
   trunk/debian/patches/048_radeon_dpms_on_dvi_support.diff
Log:
Add patch annotation and corresponding historical bug-closer.


Modified: trunk/debian/changelog
===
--- trunk/debian/changelog  2004-03-27 08:06:41 UTC (rev 1195)
+++ trunk/debian/changelog  2004-03-27 10:04:26 UTC (rev 1196)
@@ -1404,7 +1404,7 @@
 - all static-only libraries are now available in -fPIC varieties,
   including libXss (Closes: #185936)
 
-  * fix DPMS-on-DVI for Radeon driver
+  * fix DPMS-on-DVI for Radeon driver (Closes: #180938)
 - patch #048 updated with new patch from XFree86 Bugzilla, via Martin
   Loschwitz
 

Modified: trunk/debian/patches/048_radeon_dpms_on_dvi_support.diff
===
--- trunk/debian/patches/048_radeon_dpms_on_dvi_support.diff2004-03-27 
08:06:41 UTC (rev 1195)
+++ trunk/debian/patches/048_radeon_dpms_on_dvi_support.diff2004-03-27 
10:04:26 UTC (rev 1196)
@@ -1,5 +1,12 @@
 $Id$
 
+Support DPMS screen blanking on Radeon cards attached to LCD or DFP
+devices.
+
+This patch by Hui Yu.
+
+In upstream CVS as part of revision 1.98.
+
 diff -ruN xc.old/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon_driver.c 
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon_driver.c
 --- xc.old/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon_driver.c 
2003-02-25 04:50:15.0 +0100
 +++ xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon_driver.c 2003-06-14 
16:25:42.0 +0200

Bug#180938: marked as done (xserver-xfree86: [ati/radeon] no DPMS support on digital flat panels)

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 07:48:05AM -0800, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> This bug report was fixed in very early versions of 4.3.x -
> 4.3.0-0ds3v2, I believe.
> 
> Daniel Stone

I found it.  It's patch #048 that did this.

There were no patch annotations, and Martin Loschwitz, who originally
passed the patch along, did not mention which ticket in XFree86's
Bugzilla had the patch.

I've tracked the information down and updated SVN accordingly.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|You should try building some of the
Debian GNU/Linux   |stuff in main that is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |modern...turning on -Wall is like
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |turning on the pain. -- James Troup


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#239617: radeon 9000 Black Lockup in X 4.3 w/ DRI

[Branden Robinson]

tag 239617 + moreinfo upstream help
thanks

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:16:26AM -0800, Nick Rusnov wrote:
> Package: xserver-xfree86
> Version: 4.3.0-7
> 
> I have an interesting problem trying to get DRI working on my Radeon
> 9000, with kernel 2.6.4.

[The following is a form letter.]

Dear bug submitter,

Since the XFree86 X server is a large and complex piece of software, some
more informtion is required of you before this bug can be handled.  Please
run the following commands from a shell prompt to gather and deliver this
information to us:

$ /usr/share/bug/xserver-xfree86 > /tmp/output 3>&1
$ mailx -s "Re: Bug#239617" [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /tmp/output

If you do not have a "mailx" command on your system, you can get by
installing the "mailx" Debian package; for example, with the "aptitude
install mailx" or "apt-get install mailx" commands as root.  Alternatively,
you can also use a mail command that is compatible with mailx's
command-line syntax, such as "mutt".

One very good way to file bugs with the Debian Bug Tracking System is to
use the "reportbug" package and command of the same name.  The reportbug
program does a lot of automatic information-gathering that helps package
maintainers to understand your system configuration, and also ensures that
your message to the Debian Bug Tracking System is well-formed so that it is
processed correctly by the automated tools that manage the reports.  (If
you've ever gotten a "bounce" message from the Debian Bug Tracking System
that tells you your message couldn't be processed, you might appreciate
this latter feature.)

Therefore, I strongly urge you to give "reportbug" a try as your primary
bug reporting tool for the Debian System in the future.

If you *did* use reportbug to file your report, then you'r receiving this
message because the information we expected to see was not present.

If you deliberately deleted this information from the report, please don't
do that in the future, even if it seems like it makes the mail too large.
50 kB (kilobytes) of configuration and log data is typical.  Only if the
included information greatly exceeds this amount (more than 100 kB) should
you consider omitting it; instead, put it up on the World Wide Web
somewhere and provide URLs to it in your report, or in subsequent followup
by mailing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

Thank you!

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|When we call others dogmatic, what
Debian GNU/Linux   |we really object to is their
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |holding dogmas that are different
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |from our own. -- Charles Issawi


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#239991: ximcp.so.2: segfault after failure to create XIM input context

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 02:11:48AM -0500, Chung-chieh Shan wrote:
> Package: libx11-6
> Version: 4.3.0-7
> Severity: grave
> Tags: patch l10n
> Justification: causes non-serious data loss
> 
> Hello,
> 
> If _XimProtoCreateIC() in xc/lib/X11/imDefIc.c fails to create an
> input context, it cleans up by freeing the input context and its
> private resources (see the label "ErrorOnCreatingIC:" at the bottom
> of the function).  However, the failure may be encountered inside
> _XimEncodeICATTRIBUTE() (see line 1506), which may in turn have
> registered an event filter with a pointer to the input context, as shown
> in the following stack trace.

Hi,

Can you tell me if the you experience the same problem with the xlibs
4.2.1-12.1 package in testing?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Organized religion is a sham and a
Debian GNU/Linux   | crutch for weak-minded people who
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | need strength in numbers.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Jesse Ventura


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Xfree86 4.4 vs Xorg Wrap-up

[Branden Robinson]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 01:23:45PM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > 2 - Some are arguing that the new licensing is NOT GPL incompatible, but
> > nobody argues that it is not deviating from DFSG
> 
> I do not understand that. There is a consensus that the new license is GPL
> incomatible. Whether it is DFSG free is not complety clear.

More precisely, multiple inquries as to the specifics of what the new
license means have gone unanswered by the principals.

The debian-legal list has this history.

> > 4 - Debian will NOT include XFree86 4.4 components 
> 
> Yes.

Well, we won't be packaging XFree86 4.4 as such, but "components" of it
that are unencumbered by the relicensing may find their way into Debian.

These are "components" at the "snippet of source code" level, though,
and probably not what you mean.

> > 5 - Other Linux's distributions MIGTH include Xfree86 4.4
> 
> Afaik none of the major players (Suse, Redhat/Fedora, Gentoo, Mandrake,
> Debian) will. (openBSD won't either.)

The only distribution I know of that is shipping it is Slackware.

> > 7 - Debian MIGHT include Xorg, MIGHT include XFree86 4.4 in non-free or
> > similar
> 
> I doubt anybody will invest work to package XFree86 4.4 for Debian with
> the current license, I would be very surprised if any of the members of
> the current maintainer team would.

I have no such plans, myself.

> There is another alternative to XFree86 - the Xserver from
> freedesktop.org. . Afaik it has
> not yet been decided which of these Debian will choose but I think
> there is tendency towards freedesktop.org. - It is saner from a
> packager's POV, they have split X in components (server and libraries)
> which could ease maintainance a lot.

Debian doesn't have to choose one or the other.  If we're careful not to
let the packages step on each other's toes, we can have both.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|One man's theology is another man's
Debian GNU/Linux   |belly laugh.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Processed: tagging 239988

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.7.95.1
>  # fixed in Debian X Strike Force XFree86 repository; to view, run "svn diff 
> -r 1196:1197 svn://necrotic.deadbeast.net/xfree86"
> tags 239988 + pending
Bug#239988: libx11-6-dbg: Nonexistent path in package description
There were no tags set.
Tags added: pending

>
End of message, stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Processed: tagging 239991

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.7.95.1
> tags 239991 + upstream
Bug#239991: ximcp.so.2: segfault after failure to create XIM input context
Tags were: l10n patch
Tags added: upstream

>
End of message, stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Bug#239991: ximcp.so.2: segfault after failure to create XIM input context

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 02:11:48AM -0500, Chung-chieh Shan wrote:
> --- xc/lib/X11/imDefIc.c.orig 2001-01-17 14:41:51.0 -0500
> +++ xc/lib/X11/imDefIc.c  2004-03-24 23:47:54.0 -0500
> @@ -1591,6 +1591,7 @@
>  return (XIC)ic;
>  
>  ErrorOnCreatingIC:
> +_XimUnregisterFilter(ic);
>  if (ic->private.proto.ic_resources)
>   Xfree(ic->private.proto.ic_resources);
>  if (ic->private.proto.ic_inner_resources)

This file hasn't changed much upstream.

http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/X11/imDefIc.c

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux   |Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: r1187 - trunk/debian

[Branden Robinson]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 12:34:04AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > Log:
> > If using Discover 2.x to scan for hardware in the XFree86 X server
> > packages' config scripts, invoke the discover command such that an
> > abnormal exit on its part does not crash the script.
> 
> You forgot to close #239719 in the changelog.

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 12:40:13PM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > You forgot to close #239719 in the changelog.
> 
> Imho either the bug itself or a clone of it should be reassigned
> to discover.

I have reassigned it.

Thanks for keeping an eye on my commits, guys.  :)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  We either learn from history or,
Debian GNU/Linux   |  uh, well, something bad will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  happen.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  -- Bob Church


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: r1197 - trunk/debian

[X Strike Force SVN Repository Admin]

Author: branden
Date: 2004-03-27 05:25:23 -0500 (Sat, 27 Mar 2004)
New Revision: 1197

Modified:
   trunk/debian/changelog
   trunk/debian/control
Log:
Correct the package description of libx11-6-dbg to accurately identify the
location of Xlib's loadable modules (thanks, Chung-chieh Shan).
(Closes: #239988)


Modified: trunk/debian/changelog
===
--- trunk/debian/changelog  2004-03-27 10:04:26 UTC (rev 1196)
+++ trunk/debian/changelog  2004-03-27 10:25:23 UTC (rev 1197)
@@ -85,8 +85,12 @@
 setups where different X servers run on each card (thanks, Andreas
 Schuldei).  (Closes: #207543)
 
- -- Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:51:50 -0500
+  * Correct the package description of libx11-6-dbg to accurately identify the
+location of Xlib's loadable modules (thanks, Chung-chieh Shan).
+(Closes: #239988)
 
+ -- Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Sat, 27 Mar 2004 05:23:53 -0500
+
 xfree86 (4.3.0-7) unstable; urgency=medium
 
   * Urgency due to fix for FTBFS.  Yes -- I too am begging for it to stop.

Modified: trunk/debian/control
===
--- trunk/debian/control2004-03-27 10:04:26 UTC (rev 1196)
+++ trunk/debian/control2004-03-27 10:25:23 UTC (rev 1197)
@@ -192,8 +192,8 @@
  be debugged is executed.
  .
  Unstripped versions of Xlib's loadable modules for internationalization
- support are provided in /usr/X11R6/lib/debug/X11/locale/common.  Note that if
- you wish to debug these modules, you will need to set XLOCALEDIR to
+ support are provided in /usr/X11R6/lib/debug/X11/locale/lib/common.  Note
+ that if you wish to debug these modules, you will need to set XLOCALEDIR to
  /usr/X11R6/lib/debug/X11/locale.  Also note that for security reasons,
  unprivileged users are unable to override XLOCALEDIR in this way, so you may
  have to perform your debugging of the Xlib modules as root.

Processed: retitle 240169 to xserver-xfree86: [s3virge] 'Rotate' option crashes when set to 'CCW', misbehaves with 'CW' on ViRGE/DX or /GX rev 1 ...

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.7.95.1
> retitle 240169 xserver-xfree86: [s3virge] 'Rotate' option crashes when set to 
> 'CCW', misbehaves with 'CW' on ViRGE/DX or /GX rev 1
Bug#240169: xserver-xfree86: [s3virge] Option Rotate crashes with "CCW", faulty 
with "CW"
Changed Bug title.

> tags 240169 + upstream
Bug#240169: xserver-xfree86: [s3virge] 'Rotate' option crashes when set to 
'CCW', misbehaves with 'CW' on ViRGE/DX or /GX rev 1
There were no tags set.
Tags added: upstream

>
End of message, stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Bug#240146: marked as done (xserver-xfree86: crashes on ATi Radeon IGP340M during start)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 27 Mar 2004 05:39:32 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#240146: xserver-xfree86: crashes on ATi Radeon IGP340M 
during start
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 is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 25 Mar 2004 22:50:12 +
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Mar 25 14:50:12 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from service.sh.cvut.cz [147.32.127.214] 
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1B6dfv-sS-00; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:50:11 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by service.sh.cvut.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF6FD1B84EE
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:50:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from service.sh.cvut.cz ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (service [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 29025-09; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:50:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from nightmare.sh.cvut.cz (nightmare.sh.cvut.cz [147.32.115.2])
by service.sh.cvut.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 978741B837B; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:50:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from tsbook (tsbook.sh.cvut.cz [147.32.115.160])
by nightmare.sh.cvut.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 873C785A51; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:50:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from jurikm by tsbook with local (Exim 4.30)
id 1B6dfm-MO-7E; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:50:02 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Milan Jurik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: xserver-xfree86: crashes on ATi Radeon IGP340M during start
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.48
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:50:02 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Milan Jurik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at sh.cvut.cz
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATING,HAS_PACKAGE 
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level: 

Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.3.0-7
Severity: normal


Look at the error log.

-- Package-specific info:
Contents of /var/lib/xfree86/X.roster:
xserver-xfree86

X server symlink status:
lrwxrwxrwx1 root root   20 2004-03-17 00:40 /etc/X11/X -> 
/usr/bin/X11/XFree86
-rwxr-xr-x1 root root  1742316 2004-03-18 06:42 /usr/bin/X11/XFree86
/etc/X11/X target unchanged from checksum in /var/lib/xfree86/X.md5sum.

Contents of /var/lib/xfree86/XF86Config-4.roster:
xserver-xfree86

VGA-compatible devices on PCI bus:
01:05.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon IGP 340M
01:05.0 Class 0300: 1002:4337

XFree86 X server configuration file status:
-rw-r--r--1 root root 3007 2004-03-25 23:26 
/etc/X11/XF86Config-4

Contents of /etc/X11/XF86Config-4:
# XF86Config-4 (XFree86 X Window System server configuration file)
#
# This file was generated by dexconf, the Debian X Configuration tool, using
# values from the debconf database.
#
# Edit this file with caution, and see the XF86Config-4 manual page.
# (Type "man XF86Config-4" at the shell prompt.)
#
# This file is automatically updated on xserver-xfree86 package upgrades *only*
# if it has not been modified since the last upgrade of the xserver-xfree86
# package.
#
# If you have edited this file but would like it to be automatically updated
# again, run the following commands as root:
#
#   cp /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 /etc/X11/XF86Config-4.custom
#   md5sum /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 > /var/lib/xfree86/XF86Config-4.md5sum
#   dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86

Section "Files"
FontPath"unix/:7100"# local font server
# if the local font server has problems, we can fall back on these
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/misc"
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/cyrillic"
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi/:unscaled"
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi/:unscaled"
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/Type1"
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/CID"
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/Speedo"
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi"
FontPath"/usr/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi"
EndSection

Section "Module"
Load"GLcore"
Load"bitmap"
Load"dbe"
Load"ddc"
Loa

Bug#240013: marked as done (xext wasn't forced off my system)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 27 Mar 2004 05:32:56 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#240013: xext wasn't forced off my system
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 is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 25 Mar 2004 10:39:47 +
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Mar 25 02:39:47 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mars.mj.nl [81.91.1.49] 
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1B6SH5-0007Ck-00; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:39:47 -0800
Received: (qmail 6985 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2004 10:39:16 -
Received: from 81-91-5-95-customer.mjdsl.nl (HELO thanatos) (81.91.5.95)
  by www.mj.nl with SMTP; 25 Mar 2004 10:39:16 -
Received: by thanatos (Postfix, from userid 1001)
id D981710D678; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:13 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: xext wasn't forced off my system
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.48
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:13 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-BadReturnPath: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rewritten as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  using "From" header
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_12 
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE 
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_12
X-Spam-Level: 

Package: xfree86
Severity: normal

I just discovered that xext was still on my system even though
I have installed XFree86 version 4.3 and this package is described
as providing extensions for X version 3.  Should it have been
forced off using a Conflict?

What led me to discover this problem (if it is a problem) were
these error messages in my X log file:

(EE) Failed to load /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/pex5.so
(EE) Failed to load module "pex5" (loader failed, 7)

(EE) Failed to load /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/xie.so
(EE) Failed to load module "xie" (loader failed, 7)


-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (800, 'testing'), (700, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.24
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---
Received: (at 240013-done) by bugs.debian.org; 27 Mar 2004 10:32:57 +
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Mar 27 02:32:57 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from dhcp065-026-182-085.indy.rr.com (redwald.deadbeast.net) 
[65.26.182.85] 
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1B7B7Z-0001Kw-00; Sat, 27 Mar 2004 02:32:57 -0800
Received: by redwald.deadbeast.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id A3F216423D; Sat, 27 Mar 2004 05:32:56 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 05:32:56 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#240013: xext wasn't forced off my system
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cUjMc5fB5G+GsIM6"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER 
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level: 


--cUjMc5fB5G+GsIM6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:39:13AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Package: xfree86
> Severity: normal
>=20
> I just discovered that xext was still on my system even though
> I have installed XFree86 version 4.3 and this package is described
> as providing extensions for X version 3.  Should it have been
> forced off using a Conflict?
>=20
> What led me to discover this problem (if it is a problem) were
> these error messages in my X log file:
>=20
> (EE) Failed to load /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/pex5.so
> (EE) Failed to load module "pex5" (loader failed, 7)
>=20
> (EE) Failed to load /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/xie.so
> (EE) Failed to load mod

Processed: Re: libxft2-dev doesn't install

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> severity 240302 important
Bug#240302: libxft2-dev doesn't install
Severity set to `important'.

> merge 240302 237509
Bug#237509: libxft-dev: upgrading from libxft-dev 2.1.2-[1-5] doesn't work due 
to dpkg-divert being run before unpack
Bug#240302: libxft2-dev doesn't install
Bug#237511: libxft-dev: upgrading from libxft-dev 2.1.2-[1-5] doesn't work due 
to dpkg-divert being run before unpack
Merged 237509 237511 240302.

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Bug#234067: xserver-xfree86: memory leak in xserver

[Michel Dänzer]

On Sat, 2004-03-27 at 09:13, Cameron Kerr wrote:
> 
>   PID USER  PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+  COMMAND
>   824 root   5 -10 1547m 671m  84m S  6.0 66.4  74:53.90 XFree86

Have you verified with xrestop that this isn't on behalf of a client?


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer  | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer
Libre software enthusiast|   http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer

Re: Xfree86 4.4 vs Xorg Wrap-up

[Thomas Dickey]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:

try to keep the politics on forum.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Bug#239988: libx11-6-dbg: Nonexistent path in package description

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 01:55:28AM -0500, Chung-chieh Shan wrote:
> Package: libx11-6-dbg
> Version: 4.3.0-7
> Severity: minor
> 
> The package description says:
> 
>  Unstripped versions of Xlib's loadable modules for internationalization
>  support are provided in /usr/X11R6/lib/debug/X11/locale/common.
> 
> But the directory should be /usr/X11R6/lib/debug/X11/locale/lib/common
> instead.

Thanks!  I have committed this fix to SVN.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|   Our ignorance is God; what we
Debian GNU/Linux   |   know is science.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   -- Robert Green Ingersoll
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
>...
> Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which
> I promptly downgraded; if it didn't go in today, I expect that will be
> because of the new sppc upload, making it a transitive problem.

Please don't forget to upgrade the bug again later.

Downgrading RC bugs for getting a package into testing sometimes has the 
effect that the then non-RC bug gets forgotten later [1].

cu
Adrian

[1] this is not meant against the xfree86 developers, it should more
be a general rule

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)

[Daniel Stone]

On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >...
> > Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which
> > I promptly downgraded; if it didn't go in today, I expect that will be
> > because of the new sppc upload, making it a transitive problem.
> 
> Please don't forget to upgrade the bug again later.
> 
> Downgrading RC bugs for getting a package into testing sometimes has the 
> effect that the then non-RC bug gets forgotten later [1].

I downgraded it because it is NOT A VALID RC BUG IN THE FIRST PLACE.

-- 
Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: ~20 second delay starting xdm

[Keith Packard]

Around 5 o'clock on Mar 27, Branden Robinson wrote:

> OK, but how about the new ~20 second delay from the starting of X when the
> screen goes black, till one finally gets the xdm login screen?  With
> no per-line time stamps in /var/log/xdm.log, who knows just what line
> there is responsible, if any?

That could be caused by /tmp/.X11-unix or /tmp/.ICE-unix being owned by 
non-root.

-keith




pgpuMvw3CGRom.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: r1195 - trunk/debian

[Aaron M. Ucko]

X Strike Force SVN Repository Admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> +environments where lixbext-dev is not installed, since the Xft1 library
^^
*cough*

-- 
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info.

Re: XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 06:39:47AM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > >...
> > > Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which
> > > I promptly downgraded; if it didn't go in today, I expect that will be
> > > because of the new sppc upload, making it a transitive problem.
> > 
> > Please don't forget to upgrade the bug again later.
> > 
> > Downgrading RC bugs for getting a package into testing sometimes has the 
> > effect that the then non-RC bug gets forgotten later [1].
> 
> I downgraded it because it is NOT A VALID RC BUG IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I'd say a bug in a library that causes segfaults in programs is a good 
candidate for being RC.

I know that XFree86 with nearly 200 important bugs has other rules for
RC bugs than the rest of Debian, and it's a different question what to
do with such bugs if they are hard to fix, but at a first glance the bug
in question that includes both an analysis of the problem and a patch
seems to be an example of a perfect bug report.

And I have to admit I don't fully understand the, ahem, very descriptive
subject of yor mail that downgraded this bug.

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

X Strike Force XFree86 SVN commit: r1198 - trunk/debian

[X Strike Force SVN Repository Admin]

Author: branden
Date: 2004-03-27 13:35:33 -0500 (Sat, 27 Mar 2004)
New Revision: 1198

Modified:
   trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
Fix typo (and don't replace it with another one).


Modified: trunk/debian/changelog
===
--- trunk/debian/changelog  2004-03-27 10:25:23 UTC (rev 1197)
+++ trunk/debian/changelog  2004-03-27 18:35:33 UTC (rev 1198)
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@
 Clarify and improve related patch annotation.  Also, fix the Imake
 configuration for Debian GNU/Linux, the Hurd, and GNU/FreeBSD to not force
 BuildXft1Library to YES unconditionally.  These changes resolve a FTBFS in
-environments where lixbext-dev is not installed, since the Xft1 library
+environments where libxext-dev is not installed, since the Xft1 library
 was getting gratuitously built during the debugging server build, and
 couldn't find the Xext library to link against.  As a minor bonus, this
 should speed the build up a little, since a library that isn't needed is

Processed: reassign 240491 to discover, severity of 240491 is important, merging 240491 239719

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.7.95.1
> reassign 240491 discover
Bug#240491: installation scripts "don't work"
Bug reassigned from package `xserver-xfree86' to `discover'.

> severity 240491 important
Bug#240491: installation scripts "don't work"
Severity set to `important'.

> merge 240491 239719
Bug#239719: discover: "discover --type-summary display" SEGVs
Bug#240491: installation scripts "don't work"
Merged 239719 240491.

>
End of message, stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Welcome to pianoladys@topica.com

[Topica Customer Care]

Hello! 

You've been successfully added to pianoladynancy, hosted at Topica. 
Please take a moment to read the information below and save it for 
future reference.

If you believe someone has used your email address without your 
consent, please contact Topica's Abuse Team at: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


A Word From pianoladynancy

Here is a welcome message from Piano Lady Nancy:
---
Thanks for joining my mailing list.  Here's what it's all about:

Inspirational and Fun Pages, Games, Funny Pics and Toons, Monthly Printable 
Calendar, and Lots of Great Music!  You'll be the first to recieve all my new 
pages.


To read this list on the web, please visit:
http://www.topica.com/lists/pianoladys


Piano Lady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

---




A Word From Topica

Make the most of your subscription with My Topica, the easiest way to manage 
all of your email at Topica. Here's what you can do:

* Manage all your subscriptions in one central location. 
* Quickly subscribe to and unsubscribe from any list at Topica. 
* Put messages on hold if you're on vacation. 
* Easily change between message digests and individual messages. 

Sign up for a free My Topica account here:

http://www.topica.com/partner/sysmes1/my



Help Desk

Should you choose to unsubscribe, simply click the Easy Unsubscribe 
link at the bottom of any newsletter or discussion message.

Still have questions? We're here to help. Check out Topica's Help  section at:
http://lists.topica.com

Or email Topica's Customer Support at: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Please include the email address of the list in question and the email 
address you use to subscribe to the list.


Sincerely,
Topica Customer Support

Bug#240351: xserver-xfree86: Alt-Gr does not work anymore

[Christian Guggenberger]

On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 23:14, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Package: xserver-xfree86
> Version: 4.3.0-7
> Severity: normal
> 
> Hi XSF!
> 
> Since some days/weeks (maybe since 4.3.0-6/-7) the Alt-Gr key does not
> work anymore (pc105-de-nodeadkeys keyboard layout). This is pretty
> annoying since it is not possible to enter chars like [ ] @ \ ~ any
> more in any X program, this works only at the text console. 

Do you use login managers like xdm, kdm or gdm?
if so, let us know, if things like []}\ work there, or not?

 - Christian
 

why? [was: Re: reopening 234575]

[Christian Guggenberger]

On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 22:33, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 
> > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.7.95.1
> > reopen 234575
> Bug#234575: ati mobility radeon 9000 igp
> Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> 

Hmm, I don't understand why this bug has been reopened.
The original bug report dealt with a problem with ati's fgrlx driver,
and has therefore been closed by Michel.

On March 4th, Tarko Tikan incorrectly followed up this bug. From the
Subject:
xserver-xfree86: Xfree 4.3.0-3 + radeon 9000 mobility (M9) + acpi = no
 picture after S3

Now the bug has been reopened and tagged with patch, pending and upstream.

I therefore suggest to open a new bug ( I have not found a similar one in the 
BTS )
 titled: 
[radeon] radeon 9000 mobility (M9) + acpi = no
 picture after S3

and add the patch and the correct tags to this bug. Tarko Tikan's email could 
be added, too.
I also suggest to remove the tags from 234575 and close it again.

cheers.
Christian

Bug#240351: xserver-xfree86: Alt-Gr does not work anymore

[Martin Pitt]

Hi Christian!

On 2004-03-27 22:24 +0100, Christian Guggenberger wrote:
> Do you use login managers like xdm, kdm or gdm?
> if so, let us know, if things like []}\ work there, or not?

Oh, I forgot to mention: I use xdm and I also tried that out there: it
does not work, neither in xdm, nor in xterm, eterm, mozilla, or any
other program I've tried.

At least it is consistent :-)

Thanks and have a nice day!

Martin, who needs to use mouse cut&paste to get some characters in X

-- 
Martin Pitt Debian GNU/Linux Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.piware.de http://www.debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

xorg vs. xlibs/xserver/xapps?

[Nathanael Nerode]

Daniel Stone wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 06:51:03PM +0300, Dan Korostelev wrote:
>>  Is there any plans to replace XFree86 with XOrg
>> (http://freedesktop.org/Software/xorg), which is actually a fork of
>> XFree 4.4 with free licence.
>> 
>> Sorry for my english. Bye.
> 
> No, but there are plans to replace it with freedesktop.org's modular
> xlibs/xserver/xapps trees, to make it far easier to maintain.

To switch to a technical question
What are the differences between XOrg's monolithic tree and
freedesktop.org's modular trees?  Are they basically the same code apart
from the (large) configuration differences, or is one behind/ahead of the
other regarding drivers, core functionality, etc.?

For instance, I know that XOrg has basically all the XFree86 4.4
functionality in it (they're advertising it).  I have no idea whether the
modular freedesktop.org trees have the same collection of code merged in
(or whether they intend to).  (I hope so.)  Any idea?

-- 
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/

Bug#240351: xserver-xfree86: Alt-Gr does not work anymore

[Christian Guggenberger]

On Sun, 2004-03-28 at 00:01, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hi again!
> 
> After purging and reinstalling several X11-related packages, I finally
> found that reinstalling xbase-clients solves the problem. So this bug
> seems to be a transition problem, therefore I don't close the bug.

glad to hear that it's fixed now! ;)

Have you ever had the prerelease packages from experimental installed (
or DanielS' unofficial 4.3 packages)?
That could explain transition problems.

 - Christian

Bug#240351: xserver-xfree86: Alt-Gr does not work anymore

[Martin Pitt]

Hi again!

After purging and reinstalling several X11-related packages, I finally
found that reinstalling xbase-clients solves the problem. So this bug
seems to be a transition problem, therefore I don't close the bug.

Unfortunately I did not save the files of the old package, so I guess
debugging will be quite hard.

So if you don't have a clue what the cause could have been (maybe an
old compiled keyboard map?) and I'm the only one who had this problem,
then feel free to close this bug.

At least I'm happy that I can enter all characters again :-) (Well,
all but the Euro sign)

Thanks and have a nice weekend!

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitt Debian GNU/Linux Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.piware.de http://www.debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#240351: xserver-xfree86: Alt-Gr does not work anymore

[Martin Pitt]

Hi!

On 2004-03-28  0:13 +0100, Christian Guggenberger wrote:
> Have you ever had the prerelease packages from experimental installed (
> or DanielS' unofficial 4.3 packages)?
> That could explain transition problems.

About two months ago I had a Radeon 9200 Card to try out and I
installed 4.3.0 from experimental. But since it did not work, I
returned the card, purged the experimental packages and reinstalled
4.2.x (the Sid version of that time) again. It may very well be that
the purge left some files over that still remained on my system.

If the experimental package was the reason then I think we can forget
about this bug.

Thanks for your help and have a nice day!

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt Debian GNU/Linux Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.piware.de http://www.debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#240351: xserver-xfree86: Alt-Gr does not work anymore

[Denis Barbier]

On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 12:01:40AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
[...]
> At least I'm happy that I can enter all characters again :-) (Well,
> all but the Euro sign)

About the Euro sign, I can display it in xterm, but only if the
XTerm*locale is not set to true.

Denis

Bug#240351: xserver-xfree86: Alt-Gr does not work anymore

[Martin Pitt]

Hi Denis!

On 2004-03-28  0:36 +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> About the Euro sign, I can display it in xterm, but only if the
> XTerm*locale is not set to true.

Don't worry, I already fixed this. This one was a leftover from 4.2.x,
I called xmodmap in /etc/X11/xdm/Xsetup. Now it works everywhere :-)

But thank you anyway!

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt Debian GNU/Linux Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.piware.de http://www.debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#116507: (no subject)

[Dempsey]

Bug#11147: (no subject)

[Parsons]

Bug#126519: (no subject)

[Kidd]

Bug#22506: (no subject)

[Smiley]

Bug#24192: (no subject)

[Lucero]

Bug#234067: xserver-xfree86: memory leak in xserver

[Cameron Kerr]

On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 12:48:02PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-03-27 at 09:13, Cameron Kerr wrote:
> > 
> >   PID USER  PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+  COMMAND
> >   824 root   5 -10 1547m 671m  84m S  6.0 66.4  74:53.90 XFree86
> 
> Have you verified with xrestop that this isn't on behalf of a client?

xrestop - Display: localhost:0
  Monitoring 16 clients. XErrors: 0
  Pixmaps:   13752K total, Other:  33K total, All:   13785K total

res-base Wins GCs Fnts Pxms Misc Pxm mem Other Total PID Identifier
180 4  204   344   8332K4K 8337K ?   XMMS Equalizer
140   226  171  109  289   4934K   13K 4947K ?   
100 1   4221259K2K  261K ?   XOSD
080 3   3265112K2K  114K ?   wmix
0a0 2   2021 80K  120B   80K ?   wmnd
060 2   2021 32K  120B   32K ?   wmload
120 2   531   35  4B3K3K ?   xterm
0c0 2   531   35  4B3K3K ?   xterm
1c0 4  12103  0B1K1K ?   SNMPrtg - Inte
1a0 4  12102  0B1K1K ?   SNMPrtg - Inte
1e0 1   1000  0B   48B   48B ?   xrestop
0e0 0   1001  0B   48B   48B ?   
160 0   0011  4B   24B   28B ?   
200 1   0000  0B   24B   24B ?   
040 0   1000  0B   24B   24B ?   
020 0   1000  0B   24B   24B ?   

And at this time, top reports

PID USER  PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+  COMMAND   
824 root   6 -10 1642m 738m  84m S  0.3 73.0  81:56.84 XFree86   

-- 
Cameron Kerr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : http://nzgeeks.org/cameron/
Empowered by Perl!

Bug#240581: Patch to add option for ATI Radeon to force the use of lower dotclocks

[Santiago Garcia Mantinan]

Package: xfree86
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch

Hi!

I have found that my Radeon card as well as many others, says that it can
work from 20Mhz to 400Mhz, this would mean that it is not capable of
producing TV frequencies, which it is, I have found that this problem had
been reported on xfree86 bugtracking system as bug #831 and then added to
their cvs with some changes.

I have made the apropiate changes to the patch so that it could be applied
to our sources and have tested it, it works perfectly and is a clean patch,
I think that it would be good if you could apply it in a future version of
the packages.

Maybe it would also be good to upgrade Radeon's driver a little bit,
following the logs on the cvs there have been many enhancements as well as
bugfixes, new options, ...

Anyway, here are the patches, first the ones I got from the xfree86 cvs:

===
RCS file: 
/xf86/anoncvs/cvs/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon.man,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -r1.4 -r1.5
--- xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon.man   2003/10/07 
22:47:12 1.4
+++ xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon.man   2003/10/31 
23:03:17 1.5
@@ -298,6 +298,17 @@
 but not work correctly in some rare cases, hence the default is
 .B off.
 
+.TP
+.BI "Option \*qForceMinDotClock\*q \*q" frequency \*q
+Override minimum dot clock. Some Radeon BIOSes report a minimum dot
+clock unsuitable (too high) for use with television sets even when they
+actually can produce lower dot clocks. If this is the case you can
+override the value here.
+.B Note that using this option may damage your hardware.
+You have been warned. The
+.B frequency
+parameter may be specified as a float value with standard suffixes like
+"k", "kHz", "M", "MHz".
 
 .SH SEE ALSO
 XFree86(1), XF86Config(__filemansuffix__), xf86config(1), Xserver(1), 
X(__miscmansuffix__)

===
RCS file: 
/xf86/anoncvs/cvs/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon_driver.c,v
retrieving revision 1.110
retrieving revision 1.111
diff -u -r1.110 -r1.111
--- xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon_driver.c  2003/10/30 
17:36:58 1.110
+++ xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon_driver.c  2003/10/31 
23:03:17 1.111
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* $XFree86: xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon_driver.c,v 
1.109 2003/10/11 00:29:57 daenzer Exp $ */
+/* $XFree86: xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon_driver.c,v 
1.110 2003/10/30 17:36:58 tsi Exp $ */
 /*
  * Copyright 2000 ATI Technologies Inc., Markham, Ontario, and
  *VA Linux Systems Inc., Fremont, California.
@@ -138,7 +138,8 @@
 OPTION_FBDEV,
 OPTION_VIDEO_KEY,
 OPTION_DISP_PRIORITY,
-OPTION_PANEL_SIZE
+OPTION_PANEL_SIZE,
+OPTION_MIN_DOTCLOCK
 } RADEONOpts;
 
 const OptionInfoRec RADEONOptions[] = {
@@ -173,6 +174,7 @@
 { OPTION_VIDEO_KEY,  "VideoKey", OPTV_INTEGER, {0}, FALSE },
 { OPTION_DISP_PRIORITY,  "DisplayPriority",  OPTV_ANYSTR,  {0}, FALSE },
 { OPTION_PANEL_SIZE, "PanelSize",OPTV_ANYSTR,  {0}, FALSE },
+{ OPTION_MIN_DOTCLOCK,   "ForceMinDotClock", OPTV_FREQ,{0}, FALSE },
 { -1,NULL,   OPTV_NONE,{0}, FALSE }
 };
 
@@ -1774,6 +1776,7 @@
 RADEONPLLPtr   pll  = &info->pll;
 CARD16 bios_header;
 CARD16 pll_info_block;
+double min_dotclock;
 
 if (!info->VBIOS) {
 
@@ -1825,6 +1828,26 @@
pll->min_pll_freq   = RADEON_BIOS32(pll_info_block + 0x12);
pll->max_pll_freq   = RADEON_BIOS32(pll_info_block + 0x16);
pll->xclk   = RADEON_BIOS16(pll_info_block + 0x08);
+}
+
+/* (Some?) Radeon BIOSes seem too lie about their minimum dot
+ * clocks.  Allow users to override the detected minimum dot clock
+ * value (e.g., and allow it to be suitable for TV sets).
+ */
+if (xf86GetOptValFreq(info->Options, OPTION_MIN_DOTCLOCK,
+ OPTUNITS_MHZ, &min_dotclock)) {
+   if (min_dotclock < 12 || min_dotclock*100 >= pll->max_pll_freq) {
+   xf86DrvMsg(pScrn->scrnIndex, X_INFO,
+  "Illegal minimum dotclock specified %.2f MHz "
+  "(option ignored)\n",
+  min_dotclock);
+   } else {
+   xf86DrvMsg(pScrn->scrnIndex, X_INFO,
+  "Forced minimum dotclock to %.2f MHz "
+  "(instead of detected %.2f MHz)\n",
+  min_dotclock, ((double)pll->min_pll_freq/1000));
+   pll->min_pll_freq = min_dotclock * 1000;
+   }
 }
 
 return TRUE;

And now the patch I made from those, changing them so that they could apply
cleanly to our sources:

--- xc.orig/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/ati/radeon.man  2004-03-27 
03:04:50.0 +0100
++

Re: xorg vs. xlibs/xserver/xapps?

[Keith Packard]

Around 17 o'clock on Mar 27, Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> for some reason Peter's invited talk proposal "vanished" .   What do 
> you think?  I don't know if there's a spot in freenix for something 
> like this if you are interested.  He's a good guy (don't know if you 
> know him- very active in our Security community.)

Sure looks like a nice talk.  I don't currently have a spot for him, and
won't unless several of our paper authors bail on us (not that I think this
will happen, but one never knows).

-keith




pgphgLCZh14mw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: xorg vs. xlibs/xserver/xapps?

[Keith Packard]

Around 17 o'clock on Mar 27, Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> What are the differences between XOrg's monolithic tree and
> freedesktop.org's modular trees?  Are they basically the same code apart
> from the (large) configuration differences, or is one behind/ahead of the
> other regarding drivers, core functionality, etc.?

There aren't any significant technical differences, and I'll be merging
those across once the X.Org release is ready.  The biggest differences
right now are trademark related. David Dawes has indicated that he will
agressively assert rights to the XFree86 trademark, and has even taken
steps to register it with the US PTO.  

On advice of council, those doing the X.Org release have undertaken to try
and make it such that the X.Org release does not infringe on the XFree86
trademark.  For the libraries, these differences are very minor, usually 
affecting only documentation.

The goal is to migrate development effort from the monolithic tree to the
modular tree while preserving full compatibility.

> For instance, I know that XOrg has basically all the XFree86 4.4
> functionality in it (they're advertising it).  I have no idea whether the
> modular freedesktop.org trees have the same collection of code merged in
> (or whether they intend to).  (I hope so.)  Any idea?

If you look at the changes from XFree86 4.3 (current unstable) to the 
X.Org release, you'll see very few changes -- XFree86 has never done much 
work in the libraries and this release is no different.  The modular tree 
was cut over a few months earlier than X.Org, and there are probably a few 
bugfixes related to the Sun IPv6 support (which we'll have to look at 
closely before enabling for debian).

-keith




pgpE9UhQkQCkQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature