On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:17:16PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Please retest the official 2.6.26-11 images to verify if they work you:
Irrelevant question as this was no bug fix but a workaround.
Bastian
--
Emotions are alien to me. I'm a scientist.
-- Spock, "This Side
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 500358 xserver-xorg-core
Bug#500358: mach64 stopped working on the Sun Ultra 5 graphics card after
upgrade
Bug#488669: kernel changes break X on sparc64/pci
Bug reassigned from package `linux-2.6' to `xserver-xorg-core'.
> thanks
Stopping pro
reassign 500358 xserver-xorg-core
thanks
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:07:06PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 22:10:03 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > I fail to see the _kernel_ bug it fixes. I now know that this change
> > triggers a bug in the old (considered broken by desig
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:28:44PM -0600, Jordan Bettis wrote:
>
> Hi. I just wanted to weigh in and say that I've tried Max's fix on my
> Ultra 5 and I can confirm that it works with the X server from lenny.
>
> Before trying Max's kernel patch I also verified that X.org is
> *broken* and unusab
Hi. I just wanted to weigh in and say that I've tried Max's fix on my
Ultra 5 and I can confirm that it works with the X server from lenny.
Before trying Max's kernel patch I also verified that X.org is
*broken* and unusable using the default kernel. This is true of the
X.org server included in L
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 22:10:03 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:01PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 18:22:57 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > The first patch is fine. The revert is not.
> > Even if the revert is the only way to get X to work
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:20:01PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 18:22:57 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > The first patch is fine. The revert is not.
> Even if the revert is the only way to get X to work on those machines in
> lenny?
I fail to see the _kernel_ bug it fixes
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 18:22:57 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> The first patch is fine. The revert is not.
>
Even if the revert is the only way to get X to work on those machines in
lenny?
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
2008/11/11, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Go on and read the discussion of this bug if you really interested why
>> these patches differ.
>
> You want something from us. Also the bugreport reads itself as two
> different bugs, which does not make it easier to understand.
Bastian, what shou
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:46:24AM +0300, Max Dmitrichenko wrote:
> > It is the decision of the maintainer if nothing else matches.
> Ok. Who is the maintainer?
debian-kernel, represented by whom doing the work.
> Go on and read the discussion of this bug if you really interested why
> these patc
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 10:30:38PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > SPARC is a traditionally brand
> > architecture. This case
> > affects Ultra 5 and may be several other workstation. So if something
> > doesn't function
> > on one box it doesn't function on a whole gen
> It is the decision of the maintainer if nothing else matches.
Ok. Who is the maintainer?
> NMUing a properly maintained package without action from the CTTE is
> also a no-go.
Sorry, I'm not a DD and I'm very bad in your politics and burocracy.
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torv
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 09:37:11PM +0300, Max Dmitrichenko wrote:
> 2008/11/9 Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> OK, since there was no opposition and there is still no explaination on
> >> why this bug was donwgraded in the first place I'm upgrading it back to the
> >> initial severity.
> >
>
2008/11/9 Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> OK, since there was no opposition and there is still no explaination on
>> why this bug was donwgraded in the first place I'm upgrading it back to the
>> initial severity.
>
> There is only a small fraction of machines affected, so this is not RC.
Th
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 500358 important
Bug#500358: mach64 stopped working on the Sun Ultra 5 graphics card after
upgrade
Bug#488669: kernel changes break X on sparc64/pci
Severity set to `important' from `grave'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact m
severity 500358 important
thanks
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 11:54:38PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 06:24:57PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > As this affects a major part of all SPARC machines, I really think this is
> > release
> > critical and the bug severity shoul
severity 500358 grave
Thanks
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 06:24:57PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> As this affects a major part of all SPARC machines, I really think this is
> release
> critical and the bug severity should be upgraded again. If you don't disagree
> strongly
> I will upgrade it in
17 matches
Mail list logo
