2009/5/14 Jacek Politowski :
> 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 maste
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
2009/5/14 Jacek Politowski :
> 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 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
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 (
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 resu
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) commit
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 - t
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 bisec
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 Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Jacek Politowski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:09:41AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>2009/4/19 Jacek Politowski :
>
>>> 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
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:09:41AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
>2009/4/19 Jacek Politowski :
>> 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 source packages
2009/4/19 Jacek Politowski :
> 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 alwa
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
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 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
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 t
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 k
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 probl
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/instal
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 pa
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, t
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
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 01:06:19PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On 4/16/09, Alex Deucher wrote:
On 4/16/09, Jacek Politowski 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: norm
On 4/16/09, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On 4/16/09, Jacek Politowski wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:12:26PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > >On 4/16/09, Jacek Politowski wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 08:48:10AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > >> >On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 00:07 +0200
On 4/16/09, Jacek Politowski wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:12:26PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> >On 4/16/09, Jacek Politowski 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:
> >>
> >> >> Packa
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:12:26PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
>On 4/16/09, Jacek Politowski 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
On 4/16/09, Jacek Politowski 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) d
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 Rad
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 scr
30 matches
Mail list logo
