Dear listmembers,
sorry for the delay. I'd really like to spend more time with the sparc issues
if I could ;-).
Replacing the XFree86 binary that comes with the regular distribution with the
freshly build one that has been supplied by you solves the problem with X on my
U60 / SMP / Creator 3d.
> These I830WaitLpRing()-errors seem to be rather common (there are
> multiple reports against xserver-xfree86) and kernel dependent, I've
> got a user report where upgrading from 2.4.27-1-386 to 2.6.8 helped.
>
> 281439, is also interesting - 2.6.8 worked for the submitter but
> upgrading to 2.6.9
I have been neglectful in mentioning that this fix for 280384 fixes my
original problem also. Thanks to everybody for fixing it and for
sending me the files so I could post them to my web server.
--- "Jurzitza, Dieter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear listmembers,
> sorry for the delay. I'd real
On 2004-12-07 Christian Ospelkaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: xserver-xfree86
> Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-8
> Severity: important
> On my system with onboard i865, I see regular crahses when the screen
> blanks while I am logged in. The xserver log file contains the
> I830WaitLpRing()
> e
Hi
Some 14 days ago I sent a bug report about that issue.
It is really urgent since I cannot install nor upgrade nor anything
right now on the system.
Here come the bug report again, I really would appreciate any help.
Uwe Brauer
--88--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hey Branden,
Branden Robinson wrote:
| Fabio,
|
| I'm done mucking with the SVN trunk; as discussed on IRC today I think
| we're ready for a -9 release.
|
| Please note that I was unable to build- or run-test the patch to the
| neomagic driver (r2048
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-8
Followup-For: Bug #275005
I don't remember any X server crash during normal operation, but
it crashes easily in a few seconds when I start to play a movie
using Xv extension with totem or mplayer.
If I can provide more information or you'd like to
Author: fabbione
Date: 2004-12-09 09:53:04 -0500 (Thu, 09 Dec 2004)
New Revision: 2051
Added:
branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/local/xdm/Xreset
branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches/000_stolen_from_sourceforge_wacom_driver.diff
branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches/036_fix_r200_DRI_driver_assertion_fa
Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unpacking libxv1 (from .../libxv1_4.3.0.dfsg.1-8_i386.deb) ...
> dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libxv1_4.3.0.dfsg.1-8_i386.deb
> (-
> -unpack):
> trying to overwrite `/usr/X11R6/lib/libXv.so.1.0', which is also in package
> xli
> bs
> dpkg
Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, the immediate solution to your problem is to use the
> --force-overwrite option to dpkg, so that it will not error out when
> libxv1 replaces a package in xlibs:
Argh, of course that should read "... when libxv1 replaces a _file_ in
xlibs".
On
Author: fabbione
Date: 2004-12-09 11:10:25 -0500 (Thu, 09 Dec 2004)
New Revision: 2052
Modified:
trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
trunk/debian/xfree86-common.docs
trunk/debian/xfree86-common.docs.s390
Log:
Update docs files to install the uncompressed FAQ.
Modified: trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
Author: fabbione
Date: 2004-12-09 11:13:12 -0500 (Thu, 09 Dec 2004)
New Revision: 2053
Modified:
branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/CHANGESETS
branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/xfree86-common.docs
branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/xfree86-common.docs.s390
Log:
Merge commit r2052 from trunk to fix FTBFS when build
Author: branden
Date: 2004-12-09 12:45:17 -0500 (Thu, 09 Dec 2004)
New Revision: 2054
Modified:
trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
trunk/debian/changelog
trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml
Log:
Make factual updates, clarifications, and wording corrections to the FAQ:
+ Point out that the X.Org relicensing
Olá,
Se procura uma Oportunidade para mudar
definitivamente a sua Vida, ou apenas para desfrutar de 500 a 2000 em Part
Time com uma Ocupação a partir de casa veja este Link
http://www.trabalhe-em-casa.com/online_pres.htm
Obrigado
Célcio Graça
+ 351 914 119 080
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Author: branden
Date: 2004-12-09 13:11:40 -0500 (Thu, 09 Dec 2004)
New Revision: 2055
Added:
trunk/debian/patches/099m_mga_increaase_minimum_pixel_clock.diff
Modified:
trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
Increase the minimum pixel clock for Matrox cards based on feedback f
Author: branden
Date: 2004-12-09 13:12:27 -0500 (Thu, 09 Dec 2004)
New Revision: 2056
Added:
trunk/debian/patches/099m_mga_increase_minimum_pixel_clock.diff
Removed:
trunk/debian/patches/099m_mga_increaase_minimum_pixel_clock.diff
Modified:
trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
Log:
Fix stupid typo in
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 04:03:40PM +0300, Teemu Ikonen wrote:
> On 08/10/04 18:08, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Can you tell us specifically which modes cause this infinite loop?
>
> Sure. Using the wmres program mentioned previosly on this bug, I determined
> that all modes with dotclock less than
[Hamish, there is some material that may be of interest to you about 35
lines down.]
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:47:41PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> Someone raised the question of whether Xprint font files need to be
> removed, probably in 2002 as Roland said. I asked Roland about it and he
> repl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Uwe Brauer wrote:
| Hi
|
| Some 14 days ago I sent a bug report about that issue.
We all received the bug report on the mailing list. reposting the same
bug plus adding all the maintainer in CC is:
a) unpolite.
~ we are subscribed to the mailing l
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:49:51 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line libxv1 breaks apt-get and so my Debian.
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
> "Fabio" == Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Fabio> | Hi
Fabio> |
Fabio> | Some 14 days ago I sent a bug report about that issue.
Fabio>We all received thebug report on the mailing
Fabio> list. reposting the same bug plus adding all the m
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.8.5
> # fixed in Debian X Strike Force XFree86 repository; to view, run "svn diff
> -r 2054:2056 svn://necrotic.deadbeast.net/xfree86"
> tags 261993 + pending
Bug#261993: xserver-xfree86:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 11:22:11AM +0100, Jan Minar wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:40:32AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > FYI, the woody version of XFree86 is only being updated for security fixes.
>
> Known to me; in a hurry, though, so didn't have a time to re-check.
>
> > xc/programs/
Author: branden
Date: 2004-12-09 15:17:04 -0500 (Thu, 09 Dec 2004)
New Revision: 2057
Modified:
NEWS.xhtml
Log:
Fix broken link to HACKING document.
Modified: NEWS.xhtml
===
--- NEWS.xhtml 2004-12-09 18:12:27 UTC (rev 2056)
+++
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 275735 xlibmesa-dri: [radeon_dri] card locks up in drmDMA() after
> RADEONCPGetBuffer() on Radeon Mobility M7 LW [Radeon Mobility 7500] rev 0
Bug#275735: xserver-xfree86-dbg: server (normal and -dbg) lock with radeon
(Mobility 7500 M7 LW) on a
retitle 275735 xlibmesa-dri: [radeon_dri] card locks up in drmDMA() after
RADEONCPGetBuffer() on Radeon Mobility M7 LW [Radeon Mobility 7500] rev 0
reassign 275735 xlibmesa-dri
tag 275735 + moreinfo upstream
thanks
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 11:02:14AM -0400, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-10-1
Probably you are the uploader of the following file(s) in
the Debian upload queue directory:
xfree86_4.3.0.dfsg.1-9.diff.gz
xfree86_4.3.0.dfsg.1-9.dsc
This looks like an upload, but a .changes file is missing, so the job
cannot be processed.
If no .changes file arrives within 23:22:01, the fil
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 12:27:23AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Fabio,
>
> I'm done mucking with the SVN trunk; as discussed on IRC today I think
> we're ready for a -9 release.
Could you please consider applying Frank's patch for #279055?
Denis
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 276933 xserver-xfree86: [debconf] want Advanced monitor configuration
> to prompt for DisplaySize
Bug#276933: Debian configuration should always ask for monitor physical size
Changed Bug title.
> severity 276933 wishlist
Bug#276933: xserver-xf
Author: branden
Date: 2004-12-09 15:36:18 -0500 (Thu, 09 Dec 2004)
New Revision: 2058
Added:
trunk/debian/patches/099n_fbdev_driver_message_improvements.diff
Modified:
trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
Tidy up and improve fbdev driver messages, correcting spelling, addin
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 08:38:27PM +, Sam Morris wrote:
> Brandon,
FYI, it's "Branden". :)
> I also own a tablet that uses the aiptek driver, and would love to test
> this. However, the driver is present in XFree86 4.4 and Xorg, so there's
> not much point working on it unless the updated
retitle 276933 xserver-xfree86: [debconf] want Advanced monitor configuration
to prompt for DisplaySize
severity 276933 wishlist
tag 276933 + moreinfo
thanks
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 06:38:06PM +0300, Paul Pogonyshev wrote:
> Package: xserver-xfree86
> Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-8
> Severity: minor
>
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 252895 msttcorefonts: not setting up font directories per the Debian
> Policy Manual
Bug#252895: xbase-clients: [xfontsel] crashes with BadValue error on X_OpenFont
request
Changed Bug title.
> reassign 252895 msttcorefonts
Bug#252895: msttco
xfree86_4.3.0.dfsg.1-9_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
xfree86_4.3.0.dfsg.1-9.dsc
xfree86_4.3.0.dfsg.1-9.diff.gz
pm-dev_4.3.0.dfsg.1-9_all.deb
x-dev_4.3.0.dfsg.1-9_all.deb
xfonts-100dpi_4.3.0.dfsg.1-9_all.deb
xfonts-100dpi-transcoded_4.3.0.dfsg.1-9_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:14:45 +0100
Source: xfree86
Binary: libx11-6-dbg libxtst6-dbg xserver-common xlibs-static-dev libxp6-dbg
xbase-clients xlibmesa3-dbg libxtrap6-dbg xfonts-75dpi libxt6 libice6-dbg xmh
libxaw6-dbg x-dev libxv1 libx
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version:
(I don't know the Version, since I have no --status option on my
dpkg program)
I have recently installed Debian Woody, after running Mandrake for
several years and then experimenting with Red Hat. My one problem
with my Debian installation is my X11 display, a
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#80140: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#278897: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#278654: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#277699: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#277699: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Accepted:
lbxproxy_4.3.0.dfsg.1-9_i386.deb
to pool/main/x/xfree86/lbxproxy_4.3.0.dfsg.1-9_i386.deb
libdps-dev_4.3.0.dfsg.1-9_i386.deb
to pool/main/x/xfree86/libdps-dev_4.3.0.dfsg.1-9_i386.deb
libdps1-dbg_4.3.0.dfsg.1-9_i386.deb
to pool/main/x/xfree86/libdps1-dbg_4.3.0.dfsg.1-9_i386.deb
libdp
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#276415: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#276447: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#279436: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#278654: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#275473: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#275329: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#275710: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#275329: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#274513: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#274513: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#274457: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#273202: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#271326: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#271030: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#270496: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#268461: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#265133: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#263561: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#263561: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#270235: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#268997: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#268812: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#263076: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#246398: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#252068: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#245371: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#241566: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:03 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#241534: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:03 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#236086: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:03 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#172526: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:03 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#235574: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:03 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#231837: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#250331: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:03 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#236086: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#274018: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#275329: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#274513: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#277038: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#277832: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.8.5
> retitle 276983 xserver-xfree86: [nv] SIGALRM spinlock on NV5 [Aladdin TNT2]
> rev 32
Bug#276983: xserver-xfree86: nv locks up with bpp 24
Changed Bug title.
>
End of message, stoppin
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.8.5
> retitle 277309 xserver-xfree86: [nv] system hang in NVSync() when scrolling
> programs or terminal windows on NV11 [GeForce2 MX/MX400] rev 178 [regression
> from 4.3.0.dfsg.1-7]
Bug#
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> clone 279067 -1
Bug#279067: xfonts-base: strange glyph for codepoint U+03BB (GREEK SMALL LETTER
LAMDA) in -Misc-Fixed-Medium-R-Normal--13-120-75-75-C-70-ISO10646-1
Bug 279067 cloned as bug 284972.
> retitle -1 xfree86-common: FAQ should describe how t
clone 279067 -1
retitle -1 xfree86-common: FAQ should describe how to find out which package
owns a font file
severity -1 wishlist
reassign -1 xfree86-common
thanks
On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 04:51:25PM +, Dave Love wrote:
> You wrote:
>
> > Just FYI, the font in question is in xfonts-base, no
This bug seems to have been closed in error by the X upload.
Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Your message dated Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:03:04 -0500
> with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> and subject line Bug#267321: fixed in xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9
> has caused the attached Bug report to be marked
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 12:35:03AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 07:14:28PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > Package: xterm
> > Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-8
> > Severity: important
> >
> > After discussing this with Branden on IRC, I was asked to file a bug
> > report, so
Author: branden
Revision: 1917
Property Name: svn:log
New Property Value:
Apply patch from Jan Wilhelm Stumpel to correct miscoded Unicode Plane 1
characters in en_US.UTF-8 compose map. (Closes: #267231)
Author: branden
Date: 2004-12-09 17:08:54 -0500 (Thu, 09 Dec 2004)
New Revision: 2059
Modified:
trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
Fix dyslexic bug number.
Modified: trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
===
--- trunk/debia
reopen 267321
thanks
Looks like there's a typo in the changelog for version 4.3.0.dfsg.1-9 of
the XFree86 packages.
* Apply patch from Jan Wilhelm Stumpel to correct miscoded Unicode Plane 1
characters in en_US.UTF-8 compose map. (Closes: #267321)
This is not a X11 bug, but a Debian Installe
Author: branden
Date: 2004-12-09 17:34:37 -0500 (Thu, 09 Dec 2004)
New Revision: 2060
Modified:
trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
trunk/debian/TODO
trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
Inaugurate 4.3.0.dfsg.1-10 development.
Modified: trunk/debian/CHANGESETS
===
On Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 04:35:02AM +0900, Kusanagi Kouichi wrote:
> Package: libx11-6
> Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-8
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
>
> XQueryColors() doesn't return if ncolors is 65536, at least on the 16-bit
> TrueColor screen. Test program and patch are attatched.
I've confirmed t
Your message dated Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:21:49 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#267231: xlibs-data: Plane 1 in Compose file damaged
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 04:48:34PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> I disagree, it has always been pretty clear to me that uxterm is a nice
>> way to temporarily switch to a UTF-8 locale, its behavior should not be
>> altered. Maybe a new wrapper could be added, say lxterm, to launch
>> uxterm in
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:42:43PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 04:48:34PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >> I disagree, it has always been pretty clear to me that uxterm is a nice
> >> way to temporarily switch to a UTF-8 locale, its behavior should not be
> >> al
Dan the man write:
> Xprint upstream have moved over to X.Org, and are now using the main
> xorg tree as their development base. If Debian moves to X.Org, it needs
> to be getting rid of xprt-xprintorg, not the other way around.
As far as I'm concerned, xprt-xprintorg *is* the X.org version. The
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 02:52:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 11:22:11AM +0100, Jan Minar wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:40:32AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > FYI, the woody version of XFree86 is only being updated for security
> > > fixes.
> >
> > Know
help your sister with her pain
H'Y.D,R*0.C_0_D*0.N'E 7.5/50O m'g
30 PilLS 139.o0
60 P|||S 219.O0
9O P||lS 289.oo
0.r.d.e.r : http://frogsaregoodfood.com/indexv.shtml?aa5163
Same Day Sh1pp1ng
To remOve : http://frogsaregoodfood.com/please
see you soon
Leslie Fernandez
Pressoffic
98 matches
Mail list logo
