On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:26:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Can you send me the 4.2.1 version of this patch, please?
>
> The other one certainly doesn't work.
Do you mean 'loaderdiff' by 'the other one'? If so, then it won't - it's against
4.3.0.
http://people.debian.org/~willy/xfree86/
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:30:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> So...
>
> I edited the 'loaderdiff' to apply cleanly to 4.2.1 and added relocation
> 79. This makes the server start up cleanly. However, it doesn't
> actually *work* -- things head south after Radeon decides to load int10.
> 4.3
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:26:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Can you send me the 4.2.1 version of this patch, please?
>
> The other one certainly doesn't work.
Do you mean 'loaderdiff' by 'the other one'? If so, then it won't - it's against
4.3.0.
http://people.debian.org/~willy/xfree86/
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:30:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> So...
>
> I edited the 'loaderdiff' to apply cleanly to 4.2.1 and added relocation
> 79. This makes the server start up cleanly. However, it doesn't
> actually *work* -- things head south after Radeon decides to load int10.
> 4.3
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:30:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I edited the 'loaderdiff' to apply cleanly to 4.2.1 and added relocation
> 79. This makes the server start up cleanly. However, it doesn't
> actually *work* -- things head south after Radeon decides to load int10.
> 4.3 actually do
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:30:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I edited the 'loaderdiff' to apply cleanly to 4.2.1 and added relocation
> 79. This makes the server start up cleanly. However, it doesn't
> actually *work* -- things head south after Radeon decides to load int10.
> 4.3 actually do
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:54:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Okay. Thanks a lot!
So...
I edited the 'loaderdiff' to apply cleanly to 4.2.1 and added relocation
79. This makes the server start up cleanly. However, it doesn't
actually *work* -- things head south after Radeon decides to lo
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:54:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Okay. Thanks a lot!
So...
I edited the 'loaderdiff' to apply cleanly to 4.2.1 and added relocation
79. This makes the server start up cleanly. However, it doesn't
actually *work* -- things head south after Radeon decides to lo
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:06:40PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:13:12PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > FWIW, DanielS sent me a patch
> > > http://www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/~dstone/loaderdiff which, when applied
> > > to 4.3.0-0pre1v1 cures this problem. I don't
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:13:12PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > FWIW, DanielS sent me a patch
> > http://www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/~dstone/loaderdiff which, when applied
> > to 4.3.0-0pre1v1 cures this problem. I don't know whether it would apply to
> > 4.2.1, but I can try that if you like
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 02:42:36PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:37:11AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Sarge was in no danger of releasing with this bug. 1) I knew about it
> > (see debian/TODO[1]); 2) XFree86 4.3.0 is not yet on a path that will
> > take it to tes
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:06:40PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:13:12PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > FWIW, DanielS sent me a patch
> > > http://www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/~dstone/loaderdiff which, when applied
> > > to 4.3.0-0pre1v1 cures this problem. I don't
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:13:12PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > FWIW, DanielS sent me a patch
> > http://www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/~dstone/loaderdiff which, when applied
> > to 4.3.0-0pre1v1 cures this problem. I don't know whether it would apply to
> > 4.2.1, but I can try that if you like
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 02:42:36PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:37:11AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Sarge was in no danger of releasing with this bug. 1) I knew about it
> > (see debian/TODO[1]); 2) XFree86 4.3.0 is not yet on a path that will
> > take it to tes
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 206929 serious
Bug#206929: Module loader broken on ia64
Severity set to `serious'.
> tag 206929 - experimental
Bug#206929: Module loader broken on ia64
Tags were: experimental upstream pending patch
Tags removed: experimenta
severity 206929 serious
tag 206929 - experimental
thanks
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:37:11AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Sarge was in no danger of releasing with this bug. 1) I knew about it
> (see debian/TODO[1]); 2) XFree86 4.3.0 is not yet on a path that will
> take it to testing.
Yes, b
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 206929 serious
Bug#206929: Module loader broken on ia64
Severity set to `serious'.
> tag 206929 - experimental
Bug#206929: Module loader broken on ia64
Tags were: experimental upstream pending patch
Tags removed: experimenta
severity 206929 serious
tag 206929 - experimental
thanks
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:37:11AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Sarge was in no danger of releasing with this bug. 1) I knew about it
> (see debian/TODO[1]); 2) XFree86 4.3.0 is not yet on a path that will
> take it to testing.
Yes, b
severity 206929 important
tag 206929 + experimental
thanks
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:18:35PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Package: xserver-xfree86
> Version: 4.3.0-0pre1v1
> Architecture: ia64
> Severity: serious
>
> Duraid already reported this to debian-x, but it needs a bug filed
> so we do
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 206929 important
Bug#206929: Module loader broken on ia64
Severity set to `important'.
> tag 206929 + experimental
Bug#206929: Module loader broken on ia64
Tags were: upstream pending patch
Tags added: experimental
> t
severity 206929 important
tag 206929 + experimental
thanks
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:18:35PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Package: xserver-xfree86
> Version: 4.3.0-0pre1v1
> Architecture: ia64
> Severity: serious
>
> Duraid already reported this to debian-x, but it needs a bug filed
> so we do
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:43:37AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> tags 206929 + patch pending upstream
> thanks
>
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:18:35PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Duraid already reported this to debian-x, but it needs a bug filed
> > so we don't release Sarge without fixing it.
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 206929 important
Bug#206929: Module loader broken on ia64
Severity set to `important'.
> tag 206929 + experimental
Bug#206929: Module loader broken on ia64
Tags were: upstream pending patch
Tags added: experimental
> t
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 206929 + patch pending upstream
Bug#206929: Module loader broken on ia64
There were no tags set.
Tags added: patch, pending, upstream
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking
tags 206929 + patch pending upstream
thanks
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:18:35PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Duraid already reported this to debian-x, but it needs a bug filed
> so we don't release Sarge without fixing it.
>
> When typing startx, the server spews tons of:
>
> Elf_RelocateEntry(
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.3.0-0pre1v1
Architecture: ia64
Severity: serious
Duraid already reported this to debian-x, but it needs a bug filed
so we don't release Sarge without fixing it.
When typing startx, the server spews tons of:
Elf_RelocateEntry() Unsupported relocation type 135
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:43:37AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> tags 206929 + patch pending upstream
> thanks
>
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:18:35PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Duraid already reported this to debian-x, but it needs a bug filed
> > so we don't release Sarge without fixing it.
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 206929 + patch pending upstream
Bug#206929: Module loader broken on ia64
There were no tags set.
Tags added: patch, pending, upstream
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking
tags 206929 + patch pending upstream
thanks
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:18:35PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Duraid already reported this to debian-x, but it needs a bug filed
> so we don't release Sarge without fixing it.
>
> When typing startx, the server spews tons of:
>
> Elf_RelocateEntry(
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.3.0-0pre1v1
Architecture: ia64
Severity: serious
Duraid already reported this to debian-x, but it needs a bug filed
so we don't release Sarge without fixing it.
When typing startx, the server spews tons of:
Elf_RelocateEntry() Unsupported relocation type 135
30 matches
Mail list logo
