[No need to mail Branden directly; debian-user or debian-x are probably
the better forums anyway.]
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 20:46]:
> - Forwarded message from Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> When working in X, I am often switching back to a console VC, and then
>
Rene (sorry, no idea how to get the nifty ' atop the 'e'. :) --
I haven't got a clue what you mean. :)
It isn't so obvious to me, nor likely obvious to anyone else, that the
3.3.6 X server is in the package labeled 4.0.1-11. :) Sometimes, it is
the obvious things that need to be pointed out -- si
- Forwarded message from Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Problem with X after upgrade to potato
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:55:39 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTE
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 22:43]:
> Let me know if this works out, and I will babysit XFree86 builds for m68k
> myself, using the recently-donated G3.
Well, I wasn't thinking of emulating one of those old machines -- I was
thinking of setting up gcc to know about the processo
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 12:28:54AM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Here comes the new MANIFEST for m68k, I hope its not too late.
>
> Just for reference: Build needed 18:30:59 (so that Branden knows how long I
> need _at least_ to get a new MANIFEST).
Here it comes where? There was no MIM
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 07:25:23PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 03:46:49PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > * Christian T. Steigies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 15:37]:
> > > Just for reference: Build needed 18:30:59 (so that Branden knows how long I
> > > need _at least_ to get
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 01:58:18PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> [Error messages from John]
>
> [Branden -- will the Xwrapper.config 'console' or 'root' option prevent
> client connections from other hosts? Or does this effect only who can
> run X locally, as I hope it does? :]
The latter. The X
I can't really follow this one.
- Forwarded message from Rene Tschirley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Rene Tschirley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Debian Package xserver-common_4.0.1-11
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:46:17 +0100
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To:
[No need to mail Branden directly; debian-user or debian-x are probably
the better forums anyway.]
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 20:46]:
> - Forwarded message from Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> When working in X, I am often switching back to a console VC, and then
Rene (sorry, no idea how to get the nifty ' atop the 'e'. :) --
I haven't got a clue what you mean. :)
It isn't so obvious to me, nor likely obvious to anyone else, that the
3.3.6 X server is in the package labeled 4.0.1-11. :) Sometimes, it is
the obvious things that need to be pointed out -- s
- Forwarded message from Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Problem with X after upgrade to potato
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:55:39 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROT
I can't really follow this one.
- Forwarded message from Rene Tschirley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Rene Tschirley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Debian Package xserver-common_4.0.1-11
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:46:17 +0100
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 01:47:17PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:39:55PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > xserver-xfree86-11 gives corruption on my V3 3000. Black bars run across
> > the top of the screen, and moving windows causes corruption. I'm running at
> > 1792
Ben Collins wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 03:46:49PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > * Christian T. Steigies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 15:37]:
> > > Just for reference: Build needed 18:30:59 (so that Branden knows how
> > > long I need _at least_ to get a new MANIFEST).
> >
> > Could a cross-
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 03:46:49PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Christian T. Steigies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 15:37]:
> > Just for reference: Build needed 18:30:59 (so that Branden knows how long I
> > need _at least_ to get a new MANIFEST).
>
> Could a cross-compile environment bring this do
* Christian T. Steigies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 15:37]:
> Just for reference: Build needed 18:30:59 (so that Branden knows how long I
> need _at least_ to get a new MANIFEST).
Could a cross-compile environment bring this down? Is there any *need*
to compile these things on an m68k? I imagine t
Here comes the new MANIFEST for m68k, I hope its not too late.
Just for reference: Build needed 18:30:59 (so that Branden knows how long I
need _at least_ to get a new MANIFEST).
Christian
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 01:47:17PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:39:55PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > xserver-xfree86-11 gives corruption on my V3 3000. Black bars run across
> > the top of the screen, and moving windows causes corruption. I'm running at
> > 179
John, I *think* xhost needs to be used more like: xhost +blah -- no
space. ObQuestion: Have you restarted X since removing the -nolisten tcp
bit? :)
* John K. Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 14:43]:
> Seth:
> Oops, I am unclear again:
> I did use "xhost + blah", and it still refuses.
> Also
Ben Collins wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 03:46:49PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > * Christian T. Steigies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 15:37]:
> > > Just for reference: Build needed 18:30:59 (so that Branden knows how
> > > long I need _at least_ to get a new MANIFEST).
> >
> > Could a cross
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 03:46:49PM -0800, Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Christian T. Steigies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 15:37]:
> > Just for reference: Build needed 18:30:59 (so that Branden knows how long I
> > need _at least_ to get a new MANIFEST).
>
> Could a cross-compile environment bring this d
* Norbert Veber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 13:28]:
> I while back during one of my upgrades, I read something about a new
> default -- X no longer listens on port 6000 for connections. I didnt
> pay much attention at the time, but now it turns out that I need to have
> remote X clients connect
[Error messages from John]
[Branden -- will the Xwrapper.config 'console' or 'root' option prevent
client connections from other hosts? Or does this effect only who can
run X locally, as I hope it does? :]
Bummer about not being able to use ssh. (Though I am surprised the
firewall would let X con
* Christian T. Steigies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 15:37]:
> Just for reference: Build needed 18:30:59 (so that Branden knows how long I
> need _at least_ to get a new MANIFEST).
Could a cross-compile environment bring this down? Is there any *need*
to compile these things on an m68k? I imagine
Hi,
I while back during one of my upgrades, I read something about a new
default -- X no longer listens on port 6000 for connections. I didnt
pay much attention at the time, but now it turns out that I need to have
remote X clients connecting to my machine, and I cant figure out how to
turn
Here comes the new MANIFEST for m68k, I hope its not too late.
Just for reference: Build needed 18:30:59 (so that Branden knows how long I
need _at least_ to get a new MANIFEST).
Christian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
John, I *think* xhost needs to be used more like: xhost +blah -- no
space. ObQuestion: Have you restarted X since removing the -nolisten tcp
bit? :)
* John K. Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 14:43]:
> Seth:
> Oops, I am unclear again:
> I did use "xhost + blah", and it still refuses.
> Als
* Norbert Veber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 13:28]:
> I while back during one of my upgrades, I read something about a new
> default -- X no longer listens on port 6000 for connections. I didnt
> pay much attention at the time, but now it turns out that I need to have
> remote X clients connec
[Error messages from John]
[Branden -- will the Xwrapper.config 'console' or 'root' option prevent
client connections from other hosts? Or does this effect only who can
run X locally, as I hope it does? :]
Bummer about not being able to use ssh. (Though I am surprised the
firewall would let X co
Hi,
I while back during one of my upgrades, I read something about a new
default -- X no longer listens on port 6000 for connections. I didnt
pay much attention at the time, but now it turns out that I need to have
remote X clients connecting to my machine, and I cant figure out how to
turn
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:39:55PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> xserver-xfree86-11 gives corruption on my V3 3000. Black bars run across
> the top of the screen, and moving windows causes corruption. I'm running at
> 1792x1344 using DRI. Dropping back to the xserver-10 package (and keeping
> the
It seems that the problem in the G400 texturing bug is fixed in the current
CVS version of XFree 4 DRI. I went and downloaded the CVS source tree last
night (modems have enough bandwidth when you're not sitting there waiting
:) and built the server myself... it seems that there's a bug in the
rela
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:39:55PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> xserver-xfree86-11 gives corruption on my V3 3000. Black bars run across
> the top of the screen, and moving windows causes corruption. I'm running at
> 1792x1344 using DRI. Dropping back to the xserver-10 package (and keeping
> th
It seems that the problem in the G400 texturing bug is fixed in the current
CVS version of XFree 4 DRI. I went and downloaded the CVS source tree last
night (modems have enough bandwidth when you're not sitting there waiting
:) and built the server myself... it seems that there's a bug in the
rel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Did anybody here ever (succesfully) try to get the combination
> of the atyfb driver and the XFree86 4.0.x ati driver to work
> properly ?
>
> I'm using the lastest (-11) packages and the most current kernel
> (2.4.0-test12) on an2 year old laptop with an Mach64 Rage
Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> The issue is that I want to *litterally* track XFree86 CVS. I want to
> be able to say ``cvs diff'' when I'm working on XFree86.
Who doesn't? :)
> Unless someone has better ideas, then, I guess I'll install Charl's
> packages and then overwrite them with my own binar
>> Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 00:21]:
> > But the question still remains: why should a user put packages on
> > hold before an upgrade? He's got a working configuration, and AFAICS
> > it's possible to keep it.
>
> Using t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Did anybody here ever (succesfully) try to get the combination
> of the atyfb driver and the XFree86 4.0.x ati driver to work
> properly ?
>
> I'm using the lastest (-11) packages and the most current kernel
> (2.4.0-test12) on an2 year old laptop with an Mach64 Rage
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 12:37:13PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Did anybody here ever (succesfully) try to get the combination
> of the atyfb driver and the XFree86 4.0.x ati driver to work
> properly ?
Yup, here! Working fine on two machines with RagePro. On the console I have
some pro
Did anybody here ever (succesfully) try to get the combination
of the atyfb driver and the XFree86 4.0.x ati driver to work
properly ?
I'm using the lastest (-11) packages and the most current kernel
(2.4.0-test12) on an2 year old laptop with an Mach64 Rage Pro LT
chipset.
The xserver comes up
Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> The issue is that I want to *litterally* track XFree86 CVS. I want to
> be able to say ``cvs diff'' when I'm working on XFree86.
Who doesn't? :)
> Unless someone has better ideas, then, I guess I'll install Charl's
> packages and then overwrite them with my own bina
>> Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 00:21]:
> > But the question still remains: why should a user put packages on
> > hold before an upgrade? He's got a working configuration, and AFAICS
> > it's possible to keep it.
>
> Using
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 12:37:13PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Did anybody here ever (succesfully) try to get the combination
> of the atyfb driver and the XFree86 4.0.x ati driver to work
> properly ?
Yup, here! Working fine on two machines with RagePro. On the console I have
some pr
Charl, certain dumb people are starting to use the Debian BTS to file bugs
against the potato backport packages.
Even *if* my current packages are building fine out of the box on potato
systems right now, there's no guarantee that will continue to be the case
and I cannot support them.
Please mod
John, I am going to guess at what you are trying to say; cutting and
pasting error messages, complete with examples of what you are trying to
execture (say, how script(1) would perform) would help immensely,
particularly with this description.
There, that said, my guess says you are trying to run
- Forwarded message from John Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: John Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Xfree broken
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:51:33 -0800
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer:
* Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 00:21]:
> But the question still remains: why should a user put packages on
> hold before an upgrade? He's got a working configuration, and AFAICS
> it's possible to keep it.
Using the -u flag with apt would have saved him as much as using = in
Did anybody here ever (succesfully) try to get the combination
of the atyfb driver and the XFree86 4.0.x ati driver to work
properly ?
I'm using the lastest (-11) packages and the most current kernel
(2.4.0-test12) on an2 year old laptop with an Mach64 Rage Pro LT
chipset.
The xserver comes u
[Don't Cc me, I'm on the list]
>> Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems to be that gtk depends on X 4.0.1+, and that caused my working
> xserver to be purged and replaced. Still, I want to be able to use
> 3.3.6-18 and utah packages for G400 and G200 - and they'
>> Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001212 16:39]:
> > [...] and Utah's has some advantages for some people.
>
> And the one person who has seemed to be effected thus far did not take
> the time and effort to put his packages on hold. :-P
Charl, certain dumb people are starting to use the Debian BTS to file bugs
against the potato backport packages.
Even *if* my current packages are building fine out of the box on potato
systems right now, there's no guarantee that will continue to be the case
and I cannot support them.
Please mo
John, I am going to guess at what you are trying to say; cutting and
pasting error messages, complete with examples of what you are trying to
execture (say, how script(1) would perform) would help immensely,
particularly with this description.
There, that said, my guess says you are trying to run
>> Gordon Sadler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, my issue is not HOW to fix it, but rather after fixing it
> it does not stay fixed. Every upgrade requires me to again dpkg-
> reconfigure xserver-common. That was the thought behind my bug, maybe
> Branden doesn't quite realize what I me
- Forwarded message from John Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: John Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Xfree broken
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:51:33 -0800
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer
* Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001213 00:21]:
> But the question still remains: why should a user put packages on
> hold before an upgrade? He's got a working configuration, and AFAICS
> it's possible to keep it.
Using the -u flag with apt would have saved him as much as using = i
[Don't Cc me, I'm on the list]
>> Terry 'Mongoose' Hendrix II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems to be that gtk depends on X 4.0.1+, and that caused my working
> xserver to be purged and replaced. Still, I want to be able to use
> 3.3.6-18 and utah packages for G400 and G200 - and they
Seth Arnold wrote:
Compared against Utah, at least the last time I looked at it, this is
really pretty quick and easy. Whether or not the features supported by
Utah are imporant enough to justify the work involved with getting it to
go is entirely dependent upon the applications one needs to ru
>
> Weird. I just upgraded to -11 and when xdm starts, the login widget shows
> up as a blank box. Even weirder, switching to a text console and back
> suddenly brings the text back! (Except that it cleared the background to
> white in the process) Everything seems to work OK now, but earlier on,
Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
As the gtkglarea maintainer (and since you hinted it's the OpenGL
subsystem what broke) I feel this is somehow my fault... could you
please elaborate on this?
It seems to be that gtk depends on X 4.0.1+, and that caused my working
xserver to be purged and repla
>> Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001212 16:39]:
> > [...] and Utah's has some advantages for some people.
>
> And the one person who has seemed to be effected thus far did not take
> the time and effort to put his packages on hold. :-P
Seth Arnold wrote:
Perhaps it is cutting out users who join the project with woody's
original release. You don't fall into this category. You *can* install
3.3.6-11potato18 though, which is probably pretty damn close to the
3.3.6-18 you miss so much.
I feel like after giving a 'head's up' on
61 matches
Mail list logo
