> Any idea when we can get back in the mailing list archives, where I > might look this up?
I see the support archives site is still down--tried it again last night. Any news? > > But now something wants a missing "Mach64" module. There is a > > mach64_dri.so module in X's dri directory. I went through the > > kernel yet again and there's nothing but in the frame buffers for > > Mach64, but that would be a module named afyfb. Xorg -configure > > calls for the ati driver module. > > Just to check, you are using an ATI Mach (or perhaps, Rage) video > card and the ati driver ? Yes, it's a Mach64 PCI board. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Mach and .../ATI_Rage give details of > those cards. I would have thought that using the wrong driver would > mean no video in xorg. So, xorg-7.2 is broken for you ? Or somehow > falling back to something else, e.g. a generic VGA driver ? > > You sound as if you have video, at least for root running Xorg - > configure, so I'm uncertain about how I've parsed your report. OK, hopefully I can keep the issues straight this time. Xorg & "Xorg -config xorg.conf.new" both bring up the old mesh screen. (And that's with the ati driver suggested by Xorg-configure.) Now, with xinerama, libdri loads: (II) LoadModule: "dri" (II) Loading /usr/lib/X11/modules/extensions//libdri.so (II) Module dri: vendor="X.Org Foundation" compiled for 7.2.0, module version = 1.0.0 ABI class: X.Org Server Extension, version 0.3 And this is the video card detection: (II) Primary Device is: PCI 04:01:0 (II) ATI: Shared PCI/AGP Mach64 in slot 4:1:0 detected. (II) ATI: Shared PCI/AGP Mach64 in slot 4:1:0 assigned to active "Device" section "Card0". But when I add the "Section DRI" to xorg.config, then it drops out with no screen and the following. drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0 drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device) drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device) drmOpenDevice: Open failed drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0 drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device) drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device) drmOpenDevice: Open failed [drm] failed to load kernel module "mach64" <--------------- (II) ATI(0): [drm] drmOpen failed (EE) ATI(0): [dri] DRIScreenInit Failed True enough, this 2.6.34.13 (hope I remembered that correctly--it's the last of the "stable" 2.6 kernels) kernel has nothing about Mach64, except for a frame buffer module that would be called "afyfb" anyhow. I don't know of a site where I can find out where such support might be in the kernel before downloading--and I'm still on a slow (40kbps) dialup. I don't have time to go "up the line" until it works! The only clue I think I have is the dates of kernel versions and Xorg-7.2 being contemporaneous. I'm not a gamer, all I want is a system I can build a newer version of Firefox, and try building Libre Office. Don't know as I "NEED" DRI but it would be presumed to run and I might want to install this LFS/BLFS on some different box some day, so I ought to fix this problem. > On modern hardware, recent xorg is a walk in the park (use evdev, > configure the keyboard, and that's all that's needed for a single > screen in most cases. Unfortunately, I've probably forgotten a lot > of the details about configuring old versions of xorg. I have a problem with that. Whenever I give one of the "kitchen-sink distros" a try, I always get this screen with itsy-bitsy fonts. X decides I need the maximum resolution it can put up. So I always have to force my will on it and go back to a more visible 800x600 on my 17" CRT. Even now, X-7.2 is assuming I have a pc-105 keyboard, rather than my standard US pc-104, and complains about some "brightness keys" I'm missing. I've tried the 'Options "XkbModel" "pc104"' to no effect. It's another problem I'll chase down later--one at a time! But I wish software wouldn't presume it knows what I need! evdev doesn't look attractive. > > But I guess I should go sign-up for X's mailing list to persue this. > > LOL - they can be helpful, but I very much doubt they have any more > interest than we do in such an old version. They'll probably ask if > 7.7 or current development versions work [ for the whole thing ]. Yes, I've seen sites where they tell one to install the latest version before asking for help. Again, that makes many presumptions! -- Paul Rogers paulgrog...@fastmail.fm http://www.xprt.net/~pgrogers/ Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
