On Don, 2003-02-20 at 04:02, Ari Pollak wrote:
> You should have the latest versions of the DRM kernel modules, but you
> especially need the xlibmesa4-dri package, or else you'll get weird
> problems like XFree86.0.log saying Direct rendering is enabled, but
> glxinfo saying direct rendering i
On Don, 2003-02-20 at 04:02, Ari Pollak wrote:
> You should have the latest versions of the DRM kernel modules, but you
> especially need the xlibmesa4-dri package, or else you'll get weird
> problems like XFree86.0.log saying Direct rendering is enabled, but
> glxinfo saying direct rendering i
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 02:37:08PM -0300, John Lenton scrawled:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 01:03:16PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Mit, 2003-02-19 at 05:01, Ari Pollak wrote:
> > > Neither Red Hat nor Gentoo seem to have reported this problem, even
> > > though they both use gcc 3.2. If this
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 02:37:08PM -0300, John Lenton scrawled:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 01:03:16PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > On Mit, 2003-02-19 at 05:01, Ari Pollak wrote:
> > > Neither Red Hat nor Gentoo seem to have reported this problem, even
> > > though they both use gcc 3.2. If this
You should have the latest versions of the DRM kernel modules, but you
especially need the xlibmesa4-dri package, or else you'll get weird
problems like XFree86.0.log saying Direct rendering is enabled, but
glxinfo saying direct rendering is disabled.
You should have the latest versions of the DRM kernel modules, but you
especially need the xlibmesa4-dri package, or else you'll get weird
problems like XFree86.0.log saying Direct rendering is enabled, but
glxinfo saying direct rendering is disabled.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTE
On Mit, 2003-02-19 at 18:37, John Lenton wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 01:03:16PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Mit, 2003-02-19 at 05:01, Ari Pollak wrote:
> > > Neither Red Hat nor Gentoo seem to have reported this problem, even
> > > though they both use gcc 3.2. If this is an obscure up
On Mit, 2003-02-19 at 18:37, John Lenton wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 01:03:16PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Mit, 2003-02-19 at 05:01, Ari Pollak wrote:
> > > Neither Red Hat nor Gentoo seem to have reported this problem, even
> > > though they both use gcc 3.2. If this is an obscure up
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 01:03:16PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mit, 2003-02-19 at 05:01, Ari Pollak wrote:
> > Neither Red Hat nor Gentoo seem to have reported this problem, even
> > though they both use gcc 3.2. If this is an obscure upsteam bug, it
> > would be a shame to have 4.3.0 releas
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 01:03:16PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mit, 2003-02-19 at 05:01, Ari Pollak wrote:
> > Neither Red Hat nor Gentoo seem to have reported this problem, even
> > though they both use gcc 3.2. If this is an obscure upsteam bug, it
> > would be a shame to have 4.3.0 releas
On Mit, 2003-02-19 at 05:01, Ari Pollak wrote:
> Neither Red Hat nor Gentoo seem to have reported this problem, even
> though they both use gcc 3.2. If this is an obscure upsteam bug, it
> would be a shame to have 4.3.0 released without it having been fixed.
Luckily, the 4.3.0 codebase isn't aff
On Mit, 2003-02-19 at 05:01, Ari Pollak wrote:
> Neither Red Hat nor Gentoo seem to have reported this problem, even
> though they both use gcc 3.2. If this is an obscure upsteam bug, it
> would be a shame to have 4.3.0 released without it having been fixed.
Luckily, the 4.3.0 codebase isn't aff
12 matches
Mail list logo
