On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 13:13 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
I started git bisect between revisions
a6561f2ec673b38907f7181235386f32e60c32ba and
da021c36bbdf3bca31ee50ebe01cdb9495c09b36, but I really don't think
it's getting anywhere. I've attached an exemplary log of 'make'
invocation (the
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 09:47:26AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 13:13 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
I started git bisect between revisions
a6561f2ec673b38907f7181235386f32e60c32ba and
da021c36bbdf3bca31ee50ebe01cdb9495c09b36
(...) (the same error for every tested build).
2009/5/14 Jacek Politowski j...@jp.pl.eu.org:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 09:47:26AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 13:13 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
I started git bisect between revisions
a6561f2ec673b38907f7181235386f32e60c32ba and
da021c36bbdf3bca31ee50ebe01cdb9495c09b36
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 02:49:56PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
$ git bisect visualize
commit b01e35168de40d192fd7a9ce6884b9c7419afbd4
(...)
This is the first revision that shows symptoms from my initial
bug report.
Does this patch (against master) fix it?
I'm writing this under Gnome, on
2009/5/14 Jacek Politowski j...@jp.pl.eu.org:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 02:49:56PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
$ git bisect visualize
commit b01e35168de40d192fd7a9ce6884b9c7419afbd4
(...)
This is the first revision that shows symptoms from my initial
bug report.
Does this patch (against
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 02:09 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
Going upwards, from working to buggy revision, I treated FTBFS
(failing to build from source) commits as bad for git bisect. Going
from buggy revision downwards - to working one - I treated FTBFS
commits as good for git bisect.
It's
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 08:25:08AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 02:09 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
Going upwards, from working to buggy revision, I treated FTBFS
(failing to build from source) commits as bad for git bisect. Going
from buggy revision downwards - to
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 10:28 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 08:25:08AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 02:09 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
Going upwards, from working to buggy revision, I treated FTBFS
(failing to build from source) commits as bad
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:34:39AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
The point is that if you say git bisect good/bad for a commit where you
couldn't verify the problem you're bisecting, the result of the bisect
run may be incorrect.
I know that. But even when such assumption leads to incorrect
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:09:41AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
Any chance you could try 6.10.0 from the tarballs above and then use
git bisect to track down what commit broke this?
It's easy to do and would be a big help. I can walk you through if need be.
Finally I was able to do some testing
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:09:41AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
2009/4/19 Jacek Politowski j...@jp.pl.eu.org:
Basically only version 6.9.0 works (both - in X from testing and from
unstable). Unfortunately I don't have access to source package of 6.10
version of radeon driver.
You can grab
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Jacek Politowski j...@jp.pl.eu.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:09:41AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
2009/4/19 Jacek Politowski j...@jp.pl.eu.org:
Basically only version 6.9.0 works (both - in X from testing and from
unstable). Unfortunately I don't have
2009/4/19 Jacek Politowski j...@jp.pl.eu.org:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:46:47PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 08:55 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
I'll try to upgrade again to current unstable version and try packages
I've built earlier (6.9.0, 6.11.0) - this time
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 09:55:46PM +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:46:47PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 08:55 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
I'll try to upgrade again to current unstable version and try packages
I've built earlier (6.9.0, 6.11.0) -
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 04:19:19PM +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
As snapshot.debian.net seems inactive, only possible solution seems to
be to downgrade all X stuff to testing distribution state.
And it seems my last working setup was similar (or even exact) to
what's left in testing, so this
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 08:55 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
Any suggestions how to diagnose this problem further?
I'll try to upgrade again to current unstable version and try packages
I've built earlier (6.9.0, 6.11.0) - this time remembering always to
reboot after installation.
Sounds like
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:46:47PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 08:55 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
I'll try to upgrade again to current unstable version and try packages
I've built earlier (6.9.0, 6.11.0) - this time remembering always to
reboot after installation.
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 02:56 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:45:16PM +0200, Brice Goglin wrote:
Jacek Politowski wrote:
Where to find 6.1{0,1}.0? I can't find it neither on
snapshot.debian.net nor on regular mirror (ftp.pl.debian.org).
I only have packages for
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 11:40:37AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 02:56 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
Neither 6.11.0, built from your sources, nor 6.9.0 built from official
Debian's repo solves my problem.
So, either I'm doing something wrong while building/installing
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 12:13 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 11:40:37AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 02:56 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
Neither 6.11.0, built from your sources, nor 6.9.0 built from official
Debian's repo solves my problem.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 12:34:06PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 12:13 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 11:40:37AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
What else changed between the working and broken setups?
xserver-xorg-core presumably, but maybe also the
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:45:16PM +0200, Brice Goglin wrote:
Jacek Politowski wrote:
Where to find 6.1{0,1}.0? I can't find it neither on
snapshot.debian.net nor on regular mirror (ftp.pl.debian.org).
I only have packages for 6.10.99.0 and 6.11.0 for i386.
If you want to rebuild them, they're
On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 00:07 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
Package: xserver-xorg-video-radeon
Version: 1:6.12.2-1
Severity: normal
After recent upgrade (I believe) display got totally corrupted.
Here is quick gallery of two screenshots showing what is theoretically
GDM's login screen.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:48:10AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 00:07 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
Package: xserver-xorg-video-radeon
Version: 1:6.12.2-1
Severity: normal
After recent upgrade (I believe) display got totally corrupted.
(...)
I'm using AGP Radeon X800
On 4/16/09, Jacek Politowski j...@jp.pl.eu.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:48:10AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 00:07 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
Package: xserver-xorg-video-radeon
Version: 1:6.12.2-1
Severity: normal
After recent upgrade (I believe)
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:12:26PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
On 4/16/09, Jacek Politowski j...@jp.pl.eu.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:48:10AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 00:07 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
Package: xserver-xorg-video-radeon
Version:
On 4/16/09, Jacek Politowski j...@jp.pl.eu.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:12:26PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
On 4/16/09, Jacek Politowski j...@jp.pl.eu.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:48:10AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 00:07 +0200, Jacek Politowski
On 4/16/09, Alex Deucher alexdeuc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/16/09, Jacek Politowski j...@jp.pl.eu.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:12:26PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
On 4/16/09, Jacek Politowski j...@jp.pl.eu.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:48:10AM +0200, Michel Dänzer
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 01:06:19PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
On 4/16/09, Alex Deucher alexdeuc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/16/09, Jacek Politowski j...@jp.pl.eu.org wrote:
On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 00:07 +0200, Jacek Politowski wrote:
Package: xserver-xorg-video-radeon
Version: 1:6.12.2-1
Jacek Politowski wrote:
Switching back to 6.9.0 was impossible due to dependency conflict, as
it provides 'xserver-xorg-video-2' and xserver-xorg-core explicitly
conflicts with 'xserver-xorg-video-2'.
Yes, the ABI of the xserver changed meanwhile, so 6.9 needs to be
rebuilt to work with the
30 matches
Mail list logo
