Michel Dänzer wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> I only have a 15" monitor hooked up to my 7200, so I don't know.
I haven't
> been able to get it cranked past 640x480, even though I added a meg
of VRAM
> so I'd be able to do 800x600 at 24-bit depth.
>
> Can anyone else help him?
>
> - Forward
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:38:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> compress the tarball, and file a bug report with important severity so I
>
> Yes, this is one of the few things I give people permission to file
> release-critical bugs against for. :)
The important severity is no longer release
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:38:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> compress the tarball, and file a bug report with important severity so I
>
> Yes, this is one of the few things I give people permission to file
> release-critical bugs against for. :)
The important severity is no longer releas
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:59:17AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> MANIFEST.m68k for this version is on http://people.debian.org/~cts/x4.0/
>
> Was that too late? Or did I miss something else?
I forgot you told me this. In the future, please tar up your *.m68k files,
compress the tarball,
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 4.0.1-12 will contain only Debian-specific revisions (bugfixes).
I'm preparing an Alpha patch for -11 (and I guess -12) now. I'm test
compiling now and will probably have the final patch later today. Will
this be in time for -12?
C
sure what new files are going to exist on a given architecture without
> compiling the tree.
Thats why I have been compiling the pre versions and said on:
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:18:45 +0100
Subject: Re: the continuing adventures of XFree86 4.0.1
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 04:11:57PM -0500, Bra
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:20:57AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Hi,
> the changelog says:
> * updated MANIFEST.{i386,sparc,powerpc}
> so it was not updated for m68k? :-(
I don't have an m68k box of my own to build on. When the upstream version
changes (as I note in my changelog entries
Hi,
the changelog says:
* updated MANIFEST.{i386,sparc,powerpc}
so it was not updated for m68k? :-(
Christian
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:59:17AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> MANIFEST.m68k for this version is on http://people.debian.org/~cts/x4.0/
>
> Was that too late? Or did I miss something else?
I forgot you told me this. In the future, please tar up your *.m68k files,
compress the tarball
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 4.0.1-12 will contain only Debian-specific revisions (bugfixes).
I'm preparing an Alpha patch for -11 (and I guess -12) now. I'm test
compiling now and will probably have the final patch later today. Will
this be in time for -12?
C
--
To UNS
sure what new files are going to exist on a given architecture without
> compiling the tree.
Thats why I have been compiling the pre versions and said on:
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:18:45 +0100
Subject: Re: the continuing adventures of XFree86 4.0.1
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 04:11:57PM -0500, Bra
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:20:57AM -0600, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Hi,
> the changelog says:
> * updated MANIFEST.{i386,sparc,powerpc}
> so it was not updated for m68k? :-(
I don't have an m68k box of my own to build on. When the upstream version
changes (as I note in my changelog entrie
Hi,
the changelog says:
* updated MANIFEST.{i386,sparc,powerpc}
so it was not updated for m68k? :-(
Christian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 04:29:12PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > "Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:52:39PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > > Looked at xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/bus yet?
> > > Only so much as
"Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 04:29:12PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > "Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:52:39PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > > Looked at xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/bus yet?
> > > Only so much a
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 04:29:12PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> "Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:52:39PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > Looked at xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/bus yet?
> > Only so much as to use "generic" pci code for m68k as well.
"Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:52:39PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > Looked at xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/bus yet?
> Only so much as to use "generic" pci code for m68k as well. I need to know
> where the pcidata module is defined.
xc/programs/Xserve
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:52:39PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Looked at xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/bus yet?
Only so much as to use "generic" pci code for m68k as well. I need to know
where the pcidata module is defined. Shouldnt it be enough to just jet it
return silently? There i
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 04:29:12PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> "Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:52:39PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > Looked at xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/bus yet?
> > Only so much as to use "generic" pci code for m68k as well.
"Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 04:11:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > Please wait until you see source for 10pre11v2. There's no point wasting
> > your time building v1 since I'm committing some fairly important bug
> > fixes.
> MANIFEST.m68k for this version
"Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:52:39PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > Looked at xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/bus yet?
> Only so much as to use "generic" pci code for m68k as well. I need to know
> where the pcidata module is defined.
xc/programs/Xserv
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:52:39PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Looked at xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/bus yet?
Only so much as to use "generic" pci code for m68k as well. I need to know
where the pcidata module is defined. Shouldnt it be enough to just jet it
return silently? There
"Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 04:11:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > Please wait until you see source for 10pre11v2. There's no point wasting
> > your time building v1 since I'm committing some fairly important bug
> > fixes.
> MANIFEST.m68k for this versio
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 04:11:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Please wait until you see source for 10pre11v2. There's no point wasting
> your time building v1 since I'm committing some fairly important bug fixes.
MANIFEST.m68k for this version is on http://people.debian.org/~cts/x4.0/
I th
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 04:11:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Please wait until you see source for 10pre11v2. There's no point wasting
> your time building v1 since I'm committing some fairly important bug fixes.
MANIFEST.m68k for this version is on http://people.debian.org/~cts/x4.0/
I t
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 08:09:54PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 12:38:05PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> > The input code is used only for the USB support. If we want to keep
> > that, we're going to have to make it build. What I would do:
> > - #undef the necessa
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 08:09:54PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 12:38:05PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> > The input code is used only for the USB support. If we want to keep
> > that, we're going to have to make it build. What I would do:
> > - #undef the necess
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 12:38:05PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> The input code is used only for the USB support. If we want to keep
> that, we're going to have to make it build. What I would do:
> - #undef the necessary constants until it compiles
> - #define HasLinuxInput ON explicitly
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 12:38:05PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> The input code is used only for the USB support. If we want to keep
> that, we're going to have to make it build. What I would do:
> - #undef the necessary constants until it compiles
> - #define HasLinuxInput ON explicitl
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:47:16AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:00:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > However, unfortunately, some things in the XFree86 tree (the Wacom input
> > module, at least) build differently on kernel 2.4 systems than they do on
> > 2.2 sy
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:47:16AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:00:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > However, unfortunately, some things in the XFree86 tree (the Wacom input
> > module, at least) build differently on kernel 2.4 systems than they do on
> > 2.2 s
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:00:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> However, unfortunately, some things in the XFree86 tree (the Wacom input
> module, at least) build differently on kernel 2.4 systems than they do on
> 2.2 systems. More to the point, building xf86Wacom.c flat out fails on 2.4
>
I've got a patch that successfully fixes the too-clever hack in libXft
involing va_lists.
However, unfortunately, some things in the XFree86 tree (the Wacom input
module, at least) build differently on kernel 2.4 systems than they do on
2.2 systems. More to the point, building xf86Wacom.c flat ou
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:00:13AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> However, unfortunately, some things in the XFree86 tree (the Wacom input
> module, at least) build differently on kernel 2.4 systems than they do on
> 2.2 systems. More to the point, building xf86Wacom.c flat out fails on 2.4
I've got a patch that successfully fixes the too-clever hack in libXft
involing va_lists.
However, unfortunately, some things in the XFree86 tree (the Wacom input
module, at least) build differently on kernel 2.4 systems than they do on
2.2 systems. More to the point, building xf86Wacom.c flat o
"Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:30:15PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > "Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
> >
> > > I have no PCI bus, I don't see PCI mentioned in the config file, is
> > > there a way to stop loading that?
> >
> > Have you worked on the PCI code now? On
"Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:30:15PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > "Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
> >
> > > I have no PCI bus, I don't see PCI mentioned in the config file, is
> > > there a way to stop loading that?
> >
> > Have you worked on the PCI code now? O
Bad news.
4.0.1h is broken on PowerPC because a clever trick was being played with
va_lists that happens not to be portable to PowerPC.
Once I have a patch I'll apply it and all will be cool again.
--
G. Branden Robinson| If a man ate a pound of pasta and a
Debian GNU/Linux
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:30:15PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> "Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
>
> > I have no PCI bus, I don't see PCI mentioned in the config file, is there a
> > way to stop loading that?
>
> Have you worked on the PCI code now? On PPC it also works without PCI, and I
> think
Bad news.
4.0.1h is broken on PowerPC because a clever trick was being played with
va_lists that happens not to be portable to PowerPC.
Once I have a patch I'll apply it and all will be cool again.
--
G. Branden Robinson| If a man ate a pound of pasta and a
Debian GNU/Linux
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 04:11:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Please wait until you see source for 10pre11v2. There's no point wasting
> your time building v1 since I'm committing some fairly important bug fixes.
Its running already... no problem. When will the new source be out? I am
kin
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:30:15PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> "Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
>
> > I have no PCI bus, I don't see PCI mentioned in the config file, is there a
> > way to stop loading that?
>
> Have you worked on the PCI code now? On PPC it also works without PCI, and I
> think
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 04:11:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Please wait until you see source for 10pre11v2. There's no point wasting
> your time building v1 since I'm committing some fairly important bug fixes.
Its running already... no problem. When will the new source be out? I am
ki
Michel Dänzer wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> I only have a 15" monitor hooked up to my 7200, so I don't know.
I haven't
> been able to get it cranked past 640x480, even though I added a meg
of VRAM
> so I'd be able to do 800x600 at 24-bit depth.
>
> Can anyone else help him?
>
> - Forward
"Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
> 'nother problem (after hand fixing the config):
> [...]
> (II) Loader running on linux
> (II) LoadModule: "bitmap"
> (II) Loading /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a
> (II) Module XFree86 Font Renderer: vendor="XFree86 Font Renderer"
> compiled for 4.0
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 08:48:48PM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Good news everybody! I have some debs for m68k. The build failed, but this
> time to to a local configuration problem (sbuild timeout, dh_compress took
> more than 150 minutes...)
Glad to hear you've got them, sorry to hear t
* Christian T. Steigies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001207 12:02]:
> I have no PCI bus, I don't see PCI mentioned in the config file, is there a
> way to stop loading that?
Me, I would try moving the module to some other directory, and see what
happens. :)
--
``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutel
"Christian T. Steigies" wrote:
> 'nother problem (after hand fixing the config):
> [...]
> (II) Loader running on linux
> (II) LoadModule: "bitmap"
> (II) Loading /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a
> (II) Module XFree86 Font Renderer: vendor="XFree86 Font Renderer"
> compiled for 4.
Good news everybody! I have some debs for m68k. The build failed, but this
time to to a local configuration problem (sbuild timeout, dh_compress took
more than 150 minutes...)
I am trying to get them installed now, so that I can test a little. Will make
them available tomorrow (no changelog, no upl
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 08:48:48PM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Good news everybody! I have some debs for m68k. The build failed, but this
> time to to a local configuration problem (sbuild timeout, dh_compress took
> more than 150 minutes...)
Glad to hear you've got them, sorry to hear
* Christian T. Steigies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001207 12:02]:
> I have no PCI bus, I don't see PCI mentioned in the config file, is there a
> way to stop loading that?
Me, I would try moving the module to some other directory, and see what
happens. :)
--
``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolute
Good news everybody! I have some debs for m68k. The build failed, but this
time to to a local configuration problem (sbuild timeout, dh_compress took
more than 150 minutes...)
I am trying to get them installed now, so that I can test a little. Will make
them available tomorrow (no changelog, no up
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> I only have a 15" monitor hooked up to my 7200, so I don't know. I haven't
> been able to get it cranked past 640x480, even though I added a meg of VRAM
> so I'd be able to do 800x600 at 24-bit depth.
>
> Can anyone else help him?
>
> - Forwarded message from Dary
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> I only have a 15" monitor hooked up to my 7200, so I don't know. I haven't
> been able to get it cranked past 640x480, even though I added a meg of VRAM
> so I'd be able to do 800x600 at 24-bit depth.
>
> Can anyone else help him?
>
> - Forwarded message from Dar
rom: dog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: xfree86 4.0.1-10
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:02:54 +
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.2i
Organization: the ken
rom: dog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: xfree86 4.0.1-10
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:02:54 +
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.2i
Organization: the ken
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Please follow-up to debian-x if you want me to see it.]
>
> 4.0.1-10 is in the archive for i386, sparc, and powerpc. John Goerzen is
> building for alpha. Compiles for m68k and arm are still needed.
Is John building them? I thought I was! :-) I
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Please follow-up to debian-x if you want me to see it.]
>
> 4.0.1-10 is in the archive for i386, sparc, and powerpc. John Goerzen is
> building for alpha. Compiles for m68k and arm are still needed.
Is John building them? I thought I was! :-)
[Please follow-up to debian-x if you want me to see it.]
4.0.1-10 is in the archive for i386, sparc, and powerpc. John Goerzen is
building for alpha. Compiles for m68k and arm are still needed.
A prerelease of -11, based on the new upstream beta 4.0.1h, is available at
the X Strike Force reposi
er <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Daryl Moulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PowerPC XFree86 4.0.1 builds revisited
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:23:25 +1100
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROT
[Please follow-up to debian-x if you want me to see it.]
4.0.1-10 is in the archive for i386, sparc, and powerpc. John Goerzen is
building for alpha. Compiles for m68k and arm are still needed.
A prerelease of -11, based on the new upstream beta 4.0.1h, is available at
the X Strike Force repos
er <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Daryl Moulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PowerPC XFree86 4.0.1 builds revisited
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:23:25 +1100
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROT
Wow. XF4 takes quite a bit longer to build on this 7200/90 than XF3, which
took a mere 5h46m.
Command being timed: "dpkg-buildpackage -b -B -rfakeroot -uc"
User time (seconds): 34235.81
System time (seconds): 3413.69
Percent of CPU this job got: 96%
Elapsed
Wow. XF4 takes quite a bit longer to build on this 7200/90 than XF3, which
took a mere 5h46m.
Command being timed: "dpkg-buildpackage -b -B -rfakeroot -uc"
User time (seconds): 34235.81
System time (seconds): 3413.69
Percent of CPU this job got: 96%
Elapse
- Forwarded message from Szekeres Istvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Szekeres Istvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Problem with XFree86 4.0.1 problem :-)
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 16:48:29 +0100
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
- Forwarded message from Szekeres Istvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Szekeres Istvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Problem with XFree86 4.0.1 problem :-)
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 16:48:29 +0100
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
a" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: xfree86 4.0.1-8 potato debs available
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:18:10 +0100
> Branden's woody DEBs now build without modification on potato, so I don't
> even know if it's necessary to rebuild them anymore... In anycase, I have
> d
l P. Botha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: xfree86 4.0.1-8 potato debs available
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:18:10 +0100
> Branden's woody DEBs now build without modification on potato, so I don't
> even know if it's necessary to rebuild them anymore... In anycase, I have
> d
I shall give it a try.
Give you a hollar tomorrow w/status.
-tor
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> arm: I haven't heard a peep out of anyone about XF4 on
Branden> the ARM. Would someone please contact me about this?
I shall give it a try.
Give you a hollar tomorrow w/status.
-tor
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> arm: I haven't heard a peep out of anyone about XF4 on
Branden> the ARM. Would someone please contact me about this?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
>> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So long as woody and potato's libc6 differ (which means forever :) you
> wont be able to install the woody deb's on potato. So keep up the builds
> :)
Ah, that reminds me... why does the shlibs file force a >= 2.1.97
dependency? The changelog say
>> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So long as woody and potato's libc6 differ (which means forever :) you
> wont be able to install the woody deb's on potato. So keep up the builds
> :)
Ah, that reminds me... why does the shlibs file force a >= 2.1.97
dependency? The changelog sa
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 03:18:10PM +0100, Charl P. Botha wrote:
> Branden's woody DEBs now build without modification on potato, so I don't
> even know if it's necessary to rebuild them anymore... In anycase, I have
> done so (lotsa cpu time available :) and these are available from:
>
> deb http:
Branden's woody DEBs now build without modification on potato, so I don't
even know if it's necessary to rebuild them anymore... In anycase, I have
done so (lotsa cpu time available :) and these are available from:
deb http://people.debian.org/%7Ecpbotha/ xf401_potato/i386/
deb http://people.debia
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 03:18:10PM +0100, Charl P. Botha wrote:
> Branden's woody DEBs now build without modification on potato, so I don't
> even know if it's necessary to rebuild them anymore... In anycase, I have
> done so (lotsa cpu time available :) and these are available from:
>
> deb http
Branden's woody DEBs now build without modification on potato, so I don't
even know if it's necessary to rebuild them anymore... In anycase, I have
done so (lotsa cpu time available :) and these are available from:
deb http://people.debian.org/%7Ecpbotha/ xf401_potato/i386/
deb http://people.debi
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> I talked to Joseph Kain about this, and there is chance that the
> 64-bit branch may actually be folded into trunk, however I'll do the
> merge myself very soon.
Ah, very cool. Thanks!
> However, my current goal is to figure out what the hell is
On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 04:17:36AM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> I'm going to lean on the glide maintainer a bit to test out the 64-bit
> sources for glide on a 32-bit platform to see if they work (other
> volunteers are welcome since he hasn't gotten back to me in awhile).
> If they do,
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> I talked to Joseph Kain about this, and there is chance that the
> 64-bit branch may actually be folded into trunk, however I'll do the
> merge myself very soon.
Ah, very cool. Thanks!
> However, my current goal is to figure out what the hell is
On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 04:17:36AM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> I'm going to lean on the glide maintainer a bit to test out the 64-bit
> sources for glide on a 32-bit platform to see if they work (other
> volunteers are welcome since he hasn't gotten back to me in awhile).
> If they do
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> > Alpha also needs to build the xfree86v3 source package. It is the
> > only arch other than i386 that needs to do so.
>
> Ok, I'll work on that tomorrow.
Wait a sec...I thought that I did this already (?). Woody is up-to-date,
as
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> alpha:
> I have applied patches from Chris Chimelis that should work; if
> someone could volunteer to keep the package up to date I sure would
> appreciate it. If you do, please subscribe to debian-x.
Ok, already done :-) I don'
[please direct all followups to debian-x]
Just thought I would check in with the architectures that released with
potato, but don't have current versions of the XFree86 4.0.1 packages in
the archive.
XFree86 is not easily handled by build daemons because of my "MANIFEST"
mecha
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> > Alpha also needs to build the xfree86v3 source package. It is the
> > only arch other than i386 that needs to do so.
>
> Ok, I'll work on that tomorrow.
Wait a sec...I thought that I did this already (?). Woody is up-to-date,
as
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> alpha:
> I have applied patches from Chris Chimelis that should work; if
> someone could volunteer to keep the package up to date I sure would
> appreciate it. If you do, please subscribe to debian-x.
Ok, already done :-) I don
[please direct all followups to debian-x]
Just thought I would check in with the architectures that released with
potato, but don't have current versions of the XFree86 4.0.1 packages in
the archive.
XFree86 is not easily handled by build daemons because of my "MANIFEST"
mecha
Yesterday I updated X packages to version 4.0.1-7 and after troublesome
installation (these postinst bugs you know...) I got it running somehow,
but something seems to be severly broken as now I don't seem to be able
to run GNOME-enabled development versions (first 2.3.22, now 2.3.23) of
my favou
Yesterday I updated X packages to version 4.0.1-7 and after troublesome
installation (these postinst bugs you know...) I got it running somehow,
but something seems to be severly broken as now I don't seem to be able
to run GNOME-enabled development versions (first 2.3.22, now 2.3.23) of
my favo
I have built Branden's XFree86 4.0.1 -5 woody debs for potato. You can find
the HOWTO on this at:
http://cpbotha.net/building_woody_xfree86_4.0.1_debs_on_potato.HOWTO
In addition, you can also APT these to your potato system, by adding the
following two lines to your /etc/apt/sources.list
I have built Branden's XFree86 4.0.1 -5 woody debs for potato. You can find
the HOWTO on this at:
http://cpbotha.net/building_woody_xfree86_4.0.1_debs_on_potato.HOWTO
In addition, you can also APT these to your potato system, by adding the
following two lines to your /etc/apt/sources.list
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:38:50AM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonayanan wrote:
> > You don't need to use -DX_LOCALE with glibc2.
>
> If so, that's good news for me.
It is so. X_LOCALE has been deprecated for years.
In fact, it was deprecated in the very first release of Debian, over 4
years ago n
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:38:50AM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonayanan wrote:
> > You don't need to use -DX_LOCALE with glibc2.
>
> If so, that's good news for me.
It is so. X_LOCALE has been deprecated for years.
In fact, it was deprecated in the very first release of Debian, over 4
years ago
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 01:02:19AM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote:
> >>>>> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>> Theppitak Karoonboonayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hello,
>
> >> I'm using xfree86 4.0.1-3 from woody.
>>>>> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> Theppitak Karoonboonayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I'm using xfree86 4.0.1-3 from woody. Recently, I compiled an X program
>> which uses X locale setting and the linker just co
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 01:02:19AM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote:
> >>>>> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>> Theppitak Karoonboonayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hello,
>
> >> I'm using xfree86 4.0.1-3 from woody.
>>>>> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> Theppitak Karoonboonayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I'm using xfree86 4.0.1-3 from woody. Recently, I compiled an X program
>> which uses X locale setting and the linker just co
Hello,
I'm using xfree86 4.0.1-3 from woody. Recently, I compiled an X program
which uses X locale setting and the linker just complained the undefined
referencing to "_Xsetlocale".
Here's a code that can demonstrate this:
$ cat > xlctest.c
#include
int main()
{
Hello,
I'm using xfree86 4.0.1-3 from woody. Recently, I compiled an X program
which uses X locale setting and the linker just complained the undefined
referencing to "_Xsetlocale".
Here's a code that can demonstrate this:
$ cat > xlctest.c
#include
int main()
{
Well, it's there. The ATI driver does not work. By this I mean if you try
to use it, your machine will lock up and you will have to stop-a and
reboot. So don't use it. The sunffb (create/elite) driver works for me. I
assume the other sun* (tgx, cg*, etc..) servers work aswell.
There are some other
Well, it's there. The ATI driver does not work. By this I mean if you try
to use it, your machine will lock up and you will have to stop-a and
reboot. So don't use it. The sunffb (create/elite) driver works for me. I
assume the other sun* (tgx, cg*, etc..) servers work aswell.
There are some othe
1 - 100 of 300 matches
Mail list logo
