On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 06:20:08AM -0400, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I tried to get Xt to look in both directories, but several different
> > attempts failed.
>
> It shouldn't be that hard to open one pathname and if you get ENOENT,
> to try opening the other insteadthat might be a useful
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 06:20:08AM -0400, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I tried to get Xt to look in both directories, but several different
> > attempts failed.
>
> It shouldn't be that hard to open one pathname and if you get ENOENT,
> to try opening the other insteadthat might be a usefu
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whether app-defaults files can be regarded as configuration files or not is
> an arbitrary decision. By moving them to /etc/X11 in the default
> configuration, XFree86 has indicated their opinion. I see no reason to
> differ with them.
In my soon-t
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:19:17PM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> 1. It is my understanding that app-defaults files are not configuration
>files, they are just default settings stored outside the binary.
>Therefore, a sysadmin can be expected not to modify them.
On the contrary, they can.
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 10:12:27AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Why don't you just tell that XF4 will recognize
> etc/X11/XF86Config-4 before etc/X11/XF86Config ? it would have informed me of
> my error in far less words.
But it would not have reinforced the desirable behavior of Reading The
F'ing
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whether app-defaults files can be regarded as configuration files or not is
> an arbitrary decision. By moving them to /etc/X11 in the default
> configuration, XFree86 has indicated their opinion. I see no reason to
> differ with them.
In my soon-
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:19:17PM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> 1. It is my understanding that app-defaults files are not configuration
>files, they are just default settings stored outside the binary.
>Therefore, a sysadmin can be expected not to modify them.
On the contrary, they can
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 10:12:27AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Why don't you just tell that XF4 will recognize
> etc/X11/XF86Config-4 before etc/X11/XF86Config ? it would have informed me of
> my error in far less words.
But it would not have reinforced the desirable behavior of Reading The
F'ing
Can I ask a question ?
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:21:54 -0500,
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It has to do with app-defaults files. Current Debian policy says these
> can't be conffiles, so they go in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults.
>
> Well, upstream has c
Can I ask a question ?
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:21:54 -0500,
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It has to do with app-defaults files. Current Debian policy says these
> can't be conffiles, so they go in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults.
>
> Well, upstream has
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:15:59AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
[...]
> > So, why not hack X[2]? Make the library look in /etc/X11/app-defaults, then
> > in the old location. Make policy that states that packages depending on the
> > X 4 version of that li
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:15:59AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
[...]
> > So, why not hack X[2]? Make the library look in /etc/X11/app-defaults, then
> > in the old location. Make policy that states that packages depending on the
> > X 4 version of that l
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 09:07:45PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > The XF86Config file is not a conffile. Read the XF86Config 4.x manpage,
> > > and you'll see there is no conflict.
>
> > Well if i install the 3.3.6 X server, it will read
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 10:00:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:49:27AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:50:49AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Well if i install the 3.3.6 X server, it will read its configuration file
> > from
> > /etc/X11
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 09:07:45PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > The XF86Config file is not a conffile. Read the XF86Config 4.x manpage,
> > > and you'll see there is no conflict.
>
> > Well if i install the 3.3.6 X server, it will rea
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 10:00:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:49:27AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:50:49AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Well if i install the 3.3.6 X server, it will read its configuration file from
> > /etc/X11/XF8
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 01:55:15PM -0500, Derek J Witt wrote:
> I just upgraded to XF 4.0.1 via the tarballs. I found out that X is more
> unstable than XF 4.0.0. The s3virge server just locks up my system faster
> than 4.0.0 did. I tried disabling gpm, all font servers to no avail.
The best thin
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 01:55:15PM -0500, Derek J Witt wrote:
> I just upgraded to XF 4.0.1 via the tarballs. I found out that X is more
> unstable than XF 4.0.0. The s3virge server just locks up my system faster
> than 4.0.0 did. I tried disabling gpm, all font servers to no avail.
The best thi
>> Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When i build XF4, i install it into /usr/X11R6.4, and patch it so
> that it uses /etc/X11/XF86Config.4 instead of /etc/X11/XF86Config.4.
Interesting... you patched it to do ALMOST EXACTLY WHAT IT DOES PER
DEFAULT. Please go /read/ the manpages.
>> Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The XF86Config file is not a conffile. Read the XF86Config 4.x manpage,
> > and you'll see there is no conflict.
> Well if i install the 3.3.6 X server, it will read its configuration
> file from /etc/X11/XF86Config, and the 4.0.1 X server will
I just upgraded to XF 4.0.1 via the tarballs. I found out that X is more
unstable than XF 4.0.0. The s3virge server just locks up my system faster
than 4.0.0 did. I tried disabling gpm, all font servers to no avail.
The only stability I've gotten from XFree86 (3.x and 4.0.x in general) is
by usin
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:09:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Everyone except Christian Steigies did not see that. It was your
> imagination. Go away.
I'll append the last lines of the log, maybe its just mc68000 missing here ?
#elif defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__sparc__) || defined(__
>> Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When i build XF4, i install it into /usr/X11R6.4, and patch it so
> that it uses /etc/X11/XF86Config.4 instead of /etc/X11/XF86Config.4.
Interesting... you patched it to do ALMOST EXACTLY WHAT IT DOES PER
DEFAULT. Please go /read/ the manpages.
>> Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The XF86Config file is not a conffile. Read the XF86Config 4.x manpage,
> > and you'll see there is no conflict.
> Well if i install the 3.3.6 X server, it will read its configuration
> file from /etc/X11/XF86Config, and the 4.0.1 X server will
I just upgraded to XF 4.0.1 via the tarballs. I found out that X is more
unstable than XF 4.0.0. The s3virge server just locks up my system faster
than 4.0.0 did. I tried disabling gpm, all font servers to no avail.
The only stability I've gotten from XFree86 (3.x and 4.0.x in general) is
by usi
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:09:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Everyone except Christian Steigies did not see that. It was your
> imagination. Go away.
I'll append the last lines of the log, maybe its just mc68000 missing here ?
#elif defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__sparc__) || defined(_
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 12:09:59PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> When i build XF4, i install it into /usr/X11R6.4, and patch it so that it uses
> /etc/X11/XF86Config.4 instead of /etc/X11/XF86Config.4.
^^
Interesting distinction there.
[...]
> Wh
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:49:27AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:50:49AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Well if i install the 3.3.6 X server, it will read its configuration file from
> /etc/X11/XF86Config, and the 4.0.1 X server will read his from the exact same
> locatio
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 12:09:59PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> When i build XF4, i install it into /usr/X11R6.4, and patch it so that it uses
> /etc/X11/XF86Config.4 instead of /etc/X11/XF86Config.4.
^^
Interesting distinction there.
[...]
> W
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:49:27AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:50:49AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Well if i install the 3.3.6 X server, it will read its configuration file from
> /etc/X11/XF86Config, and the 4.0.1 X server will read his from the exact same
> locati
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:09:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 01:32:32PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > Are source packages available?
>
> I'm probably going to regret posting this URL, especially since I'll have
> v3 -- which I *was* going to make public --
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 01:32:32PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:57:10PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > I remember running XF4 on top of amifb way back in the 3.9.16 days, i
> > suppose
> > this will work nicely on m68k also, if you can build the kernel.
> amifb i
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:50:49AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:27:55AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Ok, about the X server, but will we maintain two sets of libraries also, or
> > go
> > with the 4.0.1 ones ?
>
> Just the 4.0.1 ones.
>
> > Also how did you solve
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:09:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 01:32:32PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > Are source packages available?
>
> I'm probably going to regret posting this URL, especially since I'll have
> v3 -- which I *was* going to make public --
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 01:32:32PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:57:10PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > I remember running XF4 on top of amifb way back in the 3.9.16 days, i suppose
> > this will work nicely on m68k also, if you can build the kernel.
> amifb is no
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:50:49AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:27:55AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Ok, about the X server, but will we maintain two sets of libraries also, or go
> > with the 4.0.1 ones ?
>
> Just the 4.0.1 ones.
>
> > Also how did you solve the
Please don't CC me on list mails.
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:54:09AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > I was hoping to avoid this, but developing consensus on -policy seems to be
> > that I should do this. Sigh.
> >
> >> [1] Verified, that is lib/Xt/Initialize.c, XtScreenDatabase()
> >
> >
Please don't CC me on list mails.
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:54:09AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > I was hoping to avoid this, but developing consensus on -policy seems to be
> > that I should do this. Sigh.
> >
> >> [1] Verified, that is lib/Xt/Initialize.c, XtScreenDatabase()
> >
> >
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> Indeed, I believe this is an Xrm issue, not necessarily a Xt one.
Well the file I referenced is the only .c or .h file in all of X that
contains the string '"app-defaults"'.
> Hacking X to do this seems bad. Why did upstream not have a similar redundant
> search path
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Can't you play a trick with XUSERFILESEARCHPATH internally? That might
> work (I'm assuming it has some built-in default value here).
Actually, the search path's value comes from the Imakefile, where is is
set via some imake function like this:
SEARCHPATHDEFAULT
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> Indeed, I believe this is an Xrm issue, not necessarily a Xt one.
Well the file I referenced is the only .c or .h file in all of X that
contains the string '"app-defaults"'.
> Hacking X to do this seems bad. Why did upstream not have a similar redundant
> search pat
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Can't you play a trick with XUSERFILESEARCHPATH internally? That might
> work (I'm assuming it has some built-in default value here).
Actually, the search path's value comes from the Imakefile, where is is
set via some imake function like this:
SEARCHPATHDEFAULT
> I was hoping to avoid this, but developing consensus on -policy seems to be
> that I should do this. Sigh.
>
>> [1] Verified, that is lib/Xt/Initialize.c, XtScreenDatabase()
>
> I'm not sure it's not the only one. It's not just Xt-using apps that read
> app-defaults, IIRC. I think the Xrm* f
Previously Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:15:59AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > So, why not hack X[2]? Make the library look in /etc/X11/app-defaults, then
> > in the old location. Make policy that states that packages depending on the
> > X 4 version of that library should use
> I was hoping to avoid this, but developing consensus on -policy seems to be
> that I should do this. Sigh.
>
>> [1] Verified, that is lib/Xt/Initialize.c, XtScreenDatabase()
>
> I'm not sure it's not the only one. It's not just Xt-using apps that read
> app-defaults, IIRC. I think the Xrm*
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 02:47:25PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> I'm two minds about this. Yes, the architecture of the new X server
> is better. What I'm getting out of it is not. I have to sit down,
> reread docs, and figure out why, but the 16 bpp mode suffers from
> severe ditherin
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 01:32:32PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Are source packages available?
I'm probably going to regret posting this URL, especially since I'll have
v3 -- which I *was* going to make public -- ready today, but...
http://deadbeast.net/~branden/DANGER_WILL_ROBINSON/
Ev
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:59:11AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Ok, I am not an xfree86 developer, I have to ask the m68k question. AFAIK
> the xfree drivers for m68k are by far not ready, or only a handful yet. With
> this we (m68k) could install xfree4.0 libraries and run the 3.3.6 serve
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:15:59AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Hmm. What bogus information will dpkg have?
[...]
> I can only identify two problems:
>
> * dpkg -S /etc/X11/app-defaults/foo will fail.
That's what I was thinking of.
> * If some other package also contains an app-defaults file named
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:27:55AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Ok, about the X server, but will we maintain two sets of libraries also, or go
> with the 4.0.1 ones ?
Just the 4.0.1 ones.
> Also how did you solve the XF86Config conflict ? since 4.x a,d 3.x XF86Config
> files are not compatible.
T
Previously Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:15:59AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > So, why not hack X[2]? Make the library look in /etc/X11/app-defaults, then
> > in the old location. Make policy that states that packages depending on the
> > X 4 version of that library should use
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 02:47:25PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> I'm two minds about this. Yes, the architecture of the new X server
> is better. What I'm getting out of it is not. I have to sit down,
> reread docs, and figure out why, but the 16 bpp mode suffers from
> severe ditheri
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 01:32:32PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Are source packages available?
I'm probably going to regret posting this URL, especially since I'll have
v3 -- which I *was* going to make public -- ready today, but...
http://deadbeast.net/~branden/DANGER_WILL_ROBINSON/
E
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:59:11AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Ok, I am not an xfree86 developer, I have to ask the m68k question. AFAIK
> the xfree drivers for m68k are by far not ready, or only a handful yet. With
> this we (m68k) could install xfree4.0 libraries and run the 3.3.6 serv
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:15:59AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Hmm. What bogus information will dpkg have?
[...]
> I can only identify two problems:
>
> * dpkg -S /etc/X11/app-defaults/foo will fail.
That's what I was thinking of.
> * If some other package also contains an app-defaults file named
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:27:55AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Ok, about the X server, but will we maintain two sets of libraries also, or go
> with the 4.0.1 ones ?
Just the 4.0.1 ones.
> Also how did you solve the XF86Config conflict ? since 4.x a,d 3.x XF86Config
> files are not compatible.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It has to do with app-defaults files. Current Debian policy says
> these can't be conffiles, so they go in
> /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults.
> Well, upstream has changed things, and it putting them in
> /etc/X11/app-defaults. Rather than buck this
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ regarding the status of the new Xserver ]
> I expect it to be widely used, especially by people with recent hardware.
I'm two minds about this. Yes, the architecture of the new X server
is better. What I'm getting out of it is not. I have
[ Talking about /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults directory, which is
planned to be a symlink to /etc/X11/app-defaults. ]
> *HOWEVER*, dpkg's databases will contain bogus information about the
> locations of files installed to that directory. So it is imperative that
> these packages have new vers
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:57:10PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> I remember running XF4 on top of amifb way back in the 3.9.16 days, i suppose
> this will work nicely on m68k also, if you can build the kernel.
amifb is not the only fb available for m68k. It might work for me, but I can
not see it, si
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It has to do with app-defaults files. Current Debian policy says
> these can't be conffiles, so they go in
> /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults.
> Well, upstream has changed things, and it putting them in
> /etc/X11/app-defaults. Rather than buck thi
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:59:11AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:00:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be
> > > woody's
> > >
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ regarding the status of the new Xserver ]
> I expect it to be widely used, especially by people with recent hardware.
I'm two minds about this. Yes, the architecture of the new X server
is better. What I'm getting out of it is not. I hav
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:00:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be woody's
> > primary X server, will it not ?
>
> I expect it to be widely used, especially by peo
[ Talking about /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults directory, which is
planned to be a symlink to /etc/X11/app-defaults. ]
> *HOWEVER*, dpkg's databases will contain bogus information about the
> locations of files installed to that directory. So it is imperative that
> these packages have new ver
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:57:10PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> I remember running XF4 on top of amifb way back in the 3.9.16 days, i suppose
> this will work nicely on m68k also, if you can build the kernel.
amifb is not the only fb available for m68k. It might work for me, but I can
not see it, s
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 10:59:11AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:00:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be woody's
> > > prima
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:00:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be woody's
> > primary X server, will it not ?
>
> I expect it to be widely used, especially by pe
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:00:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be woody's
> > primary X server, will it not ?
>
> I expect it to be widely used, especially by peo
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be woody's
> primary X server, will it not ?
I expect it to be widely used, especially by people with recent hardware.
Some of the 3.x series X servers will continue to
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 03:00:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be woody's
> > primary X server, will it not ?
>
> I expect it to be widely used, especially by pe
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:59:03AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> I think what you propose is a good solution. I suppose 4.0.1 will be woody's
> primary X server, will it not ?
I expect it to be widely used, especially by people with recent hardware.
Some of the 3.x series X servers will continue t
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:21:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi folks.
>
> As some of you know, highly unstable and experimental 4.0.1 .debs were
> produced on Friday and made available to a few people for testing. These
> things were way broken, but not as badly as I feared. I got some v
Hi folks.
As some of you know, highly unstable and experimental 4.0.1 .debs were
produced on Friday and made available to a few people for testing. These
things were way broken, but not as badly as I feared. I got some valuable
feedback, made some fixes, and am preparing for a real Phase 1 relea
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:21:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi folks.
>
> As some of you know, highly unstable and experimental 4.0.1 .debs were
> produced on Friday and made available to a few people for testing. These
> things were way broken, but not as badly as I feared. I got some
Hi folks.
As some of you know, highly unstable and experimental 4.0.1 .debs were
produced on Friday and made available to a few people for testing. These
things were way broken, but not as badly as I feared. I got some valuable
feedback, made some fixes, and am preparing for a real Phase 1 rele
76 matches
Mail list logo
