(ie leave all questions
unanswered) if that's the case. Then when it comes to package install
time, the debconf script will run again, and by that time the
predependencies will be installed.
You lose the all-questions-asked-at-onceness, but other than that I
think it could work?
Stua
ions-asked-at-onceness, but other than that I
think it could work?
Stuart.
--
Stuart Ballard, Programmer
NetReach - Internet Solutions
(215) 283-2300, ext. 126
http://www.netreach.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tream does").
I use gdm and last time I tried it worked fine if you select "Debian"
from the "Session" menu in gdm. Sucks that it's not the default, but it
isn't exactly "at gunpoint", at least.
I can't speak for any of the others, and I&#x
uot;because that's what upstream does").
I use gdm and last time I tried it worked fine if you select "Debian"
from the "Session" menu in gdm. Sucks that it's not the default, but it
isn't exactly "at gunpoint", at least.
I can't speak fo
Heitzso wrote:
>
> I run debian unstable and this morning, after updating, noticed that
> 'man' complained about a bad LANG or LC_ setting.
>
> My LANG was set to 'english' and LC_CTYPE was set,
> but set to blank or nothing, i.e. 'set' showed it but nothing
> was after the equals sign.
I had a
Heitzso wrote:
>
> I run debian unstable and this morning, after updating, noticed that
> 'man' complained about a bad LANG or LC_ setting.
>
> My LANG was set to 'english' and LC_CTYPE was set,
> but set to blank or nothing, i.e. 'set' showed it but nothing
> was after the equals sign.
I had a
[added the list back to the cc's of this because it's now a general
question about Xfree86, rather than a specific question about your
message. I hope you (Juliusz) don't mind - none of the content of your
reply seemed particularly private]
Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>
>
[added the list back to the cc's of this because it's now a general
question about Xfree86, rather than a specific question about your
message. I hope you (Juliusz) don't mind - none of the content of your
reply seemed particularly private]
Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>
>
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Underlying the DFSG is the notion that these are important values. Debian
> does not insist that everyone else in the world share them, or prioritize
> them as highly as we do. They are, however, very high priorities for our
> Project.
Speaking of DFSG-free fonts, I h
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Underlying the DFSG is the notion that these are important values. Debian
> does not insist that everyone else in the world share them, or prioritize
> them as highly as we do. They are, however, very high priorities for our
> Project.
Speaking of DFSG-free fonts, I
"Thomas E. Vaughan" wrote:
>
> Maybe I failed to do something that I was supposed to do, but dri is
> disabled for me.
>
> DRM version = 2.0.1, expected 3.0.x
> DRI disabled.
What kernel are you using?
Sounds like you have outdated drm modules in your kernel. Zephaniah's
previous message claims
"Thomas E. Vaughan" wrote:
>
> Maybe I failed to do something that I was supposed to do, but dri is
> disabled for me.
>
> DRM version = 2.0.1, expected 3.0.x
> DRI disabled.
What kernel are you using?
Sounds like you have outdated drm modules in your kernel. Zephaniah's
previous message claim
Posting on the offchance that this will sound familiar to someone,
perhaps someone else who compiled 4.0.99.1...
Using 4.0.99.1 on my Matrox card works fine, but when I install the same
debs on my S3 Savage4 chipset at work (4.0.2 won't let me use 1600x1200)
I do indeed get 1600x1200, but all the
Posting on the offchance that this will sound familiar to someone,
perhaps someone else who compiled 4.0.99.1...
Using 4.0.99.1 on my Matrox card works fine, but when I install the same
debs on my S3 Savage4 chipset at work (4.0.2 won't let me use 1600x1200)
I do indeed get 1600x1200, but all the
Philip Blundell wrote:
>
> I ran a build of xfree86-4.0.2-7 on ARM. Aside from needing one small patch
> to elf.h (attached) the compilation went OK, but the manifest check failed. I
> don't know enough about what goes on here to say whether the manifest is just
> wrong or outdated, or whether s
Philip Blundell wrote:
>
> I ran a build of xfree86-4.0.2-7 on ARM. Aside from needing one small patch
> to elf.h (attached) the compilation went OK, but the manifest check failed. I
> don't know enough about what goes on here to say whether the manifest is just
> wrong or outdated, or whether
Geordie Birch wrote:
>
> on a fresh install of unstable i am having trouble creating an XF86Config.
> it doesn't get created when xserver-xfree86 is installed, and
> dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86 doesn't create it either.
Try "apt-get install task-x-window-system-core". For some reason that
de
Geordie Birch wrote:
>
> on a fresh install of unstable i am having trouble creating an XF86Config.
> it doesn't get created when xserver-xfree86 is installed, and
> dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86 doesn't create it either.
Try "apt-get install task-x-window-system-core". For some reason that
d
Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> Stuart Ballard wrote:
>
> The latter. Go to xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/drm/kernel
> and run 'make -f Makefile.linux'.
Excellent answer, and much appreciated. However, I think I'm ignorant or
stupid or something... after
"Charl P. Botha" wrote:
>
> Why can't you just use 4.0.2 with the drivers which are available at
> http://www.matrox.com/mga/support/drivers/files/linux_05.cfm. I'm afraid
> the closest I have is a G400 running with 4.0.2, but as far as I understand
> from the aforementioned web page, your G450 s
As anyone following the "BYOX" thread will be aware, I've just
successfully built xserver debs for XFree 4.0.99.1. I had two reasons
for wanting to do this: firstly I wanted G450 support without having to
use FBDev, and secondly because I hoped it might be possible to get 3D
acceleration.
The firs
The following process works (after a very long build process) to get
xfree86 4.0.99.1 debs. They seem to work (I'm running with
xserver-xfree86 and xserver-common from these now) but I make absolutely
no claims as to quality. I did all of this as root, which is naughty but
it worked.
# apt-get bui
Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> Stuart Ballard wrote:
>
> The latter. Go to xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/drm/kernel
> and run 'make -f Makefile.linux'.
Excellent answer, and much appreciated. However, I think I'm ignorant or
stupid or something... af
"Charl P. Botha" wrote:
>
> Why can't you just use 4.0.2 with the drivers which are available at
> http://www.matrox.com/mga/support/drivers/files/linux_05.cfm. I'm afraid
> the closest I have is a G400 running with 4.0.2, but as far as I understand
> from the aforementioned web page, your G450
As anyone following the "BYOX" thread will be aware, I've just
successfully built xserver debs for XFree 4.0.99.1. I had two reasons
for wanting to do this: firstly I wanted G450 support without having to
use FBDev, and secondly because I hoped it might be possible to get 3D
acceleration.
The fir
The following process works (after a very long build process) to get
xfree86 4.0.99.1 debs. They seem to work (I'm running with
xserver-xfree86 and xserver-common from these now) but I make absolutely
no claims as to quality. I did all of this as root, which is naughty but
it worked.
# apt-get bu
Stuart Ballard wrote:
>
> What I did was as follows (from memory - I may have a filename or two
> wrong, as I'm not at the relevant machine right now. Later this evening
> I can post a full log):
>
> # apt-get build-dep xserver-xfree86
> # apt-get source xserver-xfree86
Stuart Ballard wrote:
>
> What I did was as follows (from memory - I may have a filename or two
> wrong, as I'm not at the relevant machine right now. Later this evening
> I can post a full log):
>
> # apt-get build-dep xserver-xfree86
> # apt-get source xserver-xfre
Gordon Sadler wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:34:50PM -0500, Stuart Ballard wrote:
> > The build works for a while (a bunch of patches fail, but some of them
> > succeed, and it gets into the build part of the process), but fails when
> > trying to run (I think):
>
"Charl P. Botha" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:34:50PM -0500, Stuart Ballard wrote:
> > I've just joined this list, but I see a few times in the archives that
> > people have tried to build their own X debs. These threads seem to peter
> > out
Gordon Sadler wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:34:50PM -0500, Stuart Ballard wrote:
> > The build works for a while (a bunch of patches fail, but some of them
> > succeed, and it gets into the build part of the process), but fails when
> > trying to run (I
"Charl P. Botha" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:34:50PM -0500, Stuart Ballard wrote:
> > I've just joined this list, but I see a few times in the archives that
> > people have tried to build their own X debs. These threads seem to peter
> > out
I've just joined this list, but I see a few times in the archives that
people have tried to build their own X debs. These threads seem to peter
out without any resolution most of the time.
I'm in the same situation as others who want to do this - a couple of
bugs/features are in the latest 4.0.99.
I've just joined this list, but I see a few times in the archives that
people have tried to build their own X debs. These threads seem to peter
out without any resolution most of the time.
I'm in the same situation as others who want to do this - a couple of
bugs/features are in the latest 4.0.99
34 matches
Mail list logo
