On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 01:24:38PM +0200, Thomas Fischbacher wrote:
> As a first step to get a -g compiled xnest binary, I just tried to build
> X11 myself (apt-get source xnest; debuild -us -uc in the directory, have
> plenty of disk space), but unfortunately, the build process terminates
> with:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 01:24:38PM +0200, Thomas Fischbacher wrote:
> As a first step to get a -g compiled xnest binary, I just tried to build
> X11 myself (apt-get source xnest; debuild -us -uc in the directory, have
> plenty of disk space), but unfortunately, the build process terminates
> with:
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 15:43, Thomas Fischbacher wrote:
> > > This is Xnest's stderr, as is clearly seen by starting enlightenment
> > > from a different tty.
> >
> > Clearly? Then I'm probably blind...
>
> Look:
Hey, I bought it already. ;) I just don't agree it's 'clearly seen' in
the original r
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 15:43, Thomas Fischbacher wrote:
> > > This is Xnest's stderr, as is clearly seen by starting enlightenment
> > > from a different tty.
> >
> > Clearly? Then I'm probably blind...
>
> Look:
Hey, I bought it already. ;) I just don't agree it's 'clearly seen' in
the original r
> > This is Xnest's stderr, as is clearly seen by starting enlightenment
> > from a different tty.
>
> Clearly? Then I'm probably blind...
Look:
=== xterm #1 ===
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -la /proc/self/fd
total 0
dr-x--2 tf tf 0 Sep 5 17:37 .
dr-xr-xr-x3 tf
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 13:24, Thomas Fischbacher wrote:
> > > > This looks like an enlightenment rather than an Xnest bug to me?
> > >
> > > I do not share this opinion. An X client (be it a window manager or not)
> > > should not be able to crash an X server.
> >
> > Absolutely, but your report did
> > This is Xnest's stderr, as is clearly seen by starting enlightenment
> > from a different tty.
>
> Clearly? Then I'm probably blind...
Look:
=== xterm #1 ===
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -la /proc/self/fd
total 0
dr-x--2 tf tf 0 Sep 5 17:37 .
dr-xr-xr-x3 tf
> > > This looks like an enlightenment rather than an Xnest bug to me?
> >
> > I do not share this opinion. An X client (be it a window manager or not)
> > should not be able to crash an X server.
>
> Absolutely, but your report didn't definitely show an Xnest crash. Is
> the X error from Xnest or
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 13:24, Thomas Fischbacher wrote:
> > > > This looks like an enlightenment rather than an Xnest bug to me?
> > >
> > > I do not share this opinion. An X client (be it a window manager or not)
> > > should not be able to crash an X server.
> >
> > Absolutely, but your report did
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 09:37, Thomas Fischbacher wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> > This looks like an enlightenment rather than an Xnest bug to me?
>
> I do not share this opinion. An X client (be it a window manager or not)
> should not be able to crash an X server.
Absolu
> > > This looks like an enlightenment rather than an Xnest bug to me?
> >
> > I do not share this opinion. An X client (be it a window manager or not)
> > should not be able to crash an X server.
>
> Absolutely, but your report didn't definitely show an Xnest crash. Is
> the X error from Xnest or
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 09:37, Thomas Fischbacher wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> > This looks like an enlightenment rather than an Xnest bug to me?
>
> I do not share this opinion. An X client (be it a window manager or not)
> should not be able to crash an X server.
Absolu
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:53:46PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> This looks like an enlightenment rather than an Xnest bug to me?
Not if Xnest itself went ahead and aborted, as he said it did.
If Xnest didn't actually stop running, then you're right, this isn't an
X bug.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 09:32:03PM +0200, Thomas Fischbacher wrote:
>
> > severity 208683 important
>
> Oh, sooorry... forgot to classify it myself.
>
> > What architecture are you using?
>
> i386 (Pentium IV).
>
> > We should probably get an unstripped
> > Xnest binary into your hands, so tha
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:53:46PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> This looks like an enlightenment rather than an Xnest bug to me?
Not if Xnest itself went ahead and aborted, as he said it did.
If Xnest didn't actually stop running, then you're right, this isn't an
X bug.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 09:32:03PM +0200, Thomas Fischbacher wrote:
>
> > severity 208683 important
>
> Oh, sooorry... forgot to classify it myself.
>
> > What architecture are you using?
>
> i386 (Pentium IV).
>
> > We should probably get an unstripped
> > Xnest binary into your hands, so tha
On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 19:26, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:41:42PM +0200, Thomas Fischbacher wrote:
> > Package: xnest
> > Version: 4.2.1-6
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ Xnest :2 &
> > [1] 19166 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ Could not init font path element
> > /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/
On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 19:26, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:41:42PM +0200, Thomas Fischbacher wrote:
> > Package: xnest
> > Version: 4.2.1-6
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ Xnest :2 &
> > [1] 19166 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ Could not init font path element
> > /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/
> severity 208683 important
Oh, sooorry... forgot to classify it myself.
> What architecture are you using?
i386 (Pentium IV).
> We should probably get an unstripped
> Xnest binary into your hands, so that a core dump can be analyzed.
Can build one myself. Tomorrow. (Just checking mail from a
severity 208683 important
retitle 208683 xnest: server crashes when using Enlightenment
tag 208683 + moreinfo upstream
thanks
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:41:42PM +0200, Thomas Fischbacher wrote:
> Package: xnest
> Version: 4.2.1-6
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ Xnest :2 &
> [1] 19166 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 208683 important
Bug#208683: Xnest killed by enlightenment
Severity set to `important'.
> retitle 208683 xnest: server crashes when using Enlightenment
Bug#208683: Xnest killed by enlightenment
Changed Bug title.
> tag 208
> severity 208683 important
Oh, sooorry... forgot to classify it myself.
> What architecture are you using?
i386 (Pentium IV).
> We should probably get an unstripped
> Xnest binary into your hands, so that a core dump can be analyzed.
Can build one myself. Tomorrow. (Just checking mail from a
severity 208683 important
retitle 208683 xnest: server crashes when using Enlightenment
tag 208683 + moreinfo upstream
thanks
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:41:42PM +0200, Thomas Fischbacher wrote:
> Package: xnest
> Version: 4.2.1-6
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ Xnest :2 &
> [1] 19166 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 208683 important
Bug#208683: Xnest killed by enlightenment
Severity set to `important'.
> retitle 208683 xnest: server crashes when using Enlightenment
Bug#208683: Xnest killed by enlightenment
Changed Bug title.
> tag 208
Package: xnest
Version: 4.2.1-6
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ Xnest :2 &
[1] 19166 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ Could not init font path element
/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/CID/, removing from list!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ DISPLAY=:2.0 enlightenment
Xlib: extension "MIT-SHM" missing on display ":2.0".
(...)
Xlib: e
Package: xnest
Version: 4.2.1-6
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ Xnest :2 &
[1] 19166 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ Could not init font path element
/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/CID/, removing from list!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ DISPLAY=:2.0 enlightenment
Xlib: extension "MIT-SHM" missing on display ":2.0".
(...)
Xlib: e
26 matches
Mail list logo
