On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 09:12:08AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ...
>
>Anyone got any idea what's wrong with the SF binaries? I suspect there
>would be much more useful testing of the CVS drivers if the binaries
>worked!
>
>Cheers,
>
>Andrew
On the 10th of June I updated the system where the
Dear Keith -
> This is interesting. The code to cope with multiple contexts there
> hasn't had a huge amount of testing. If I download your code, how
> can I exercise this problem?
Thanks for offering to look at this. Here's how to reproduce the
problem. First download the i386 executable from
On Saturday 22 June 2002 21:41, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>If you're running XFree86 4.1,
> >
> > No, I'm running 4.2. Yesterday I bit the bullet and downloaded the
> > entire source tree (quite an adventure down a phone line ...) and
> > built from source. All worked fin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>If you're running XFree86 4.1,
>>
>
> No, I'm running 4.2. Yesterday I bit the bullet and downloaded the
> entire source tree (quite an adventure down a phone line ...) and
> built from source. All worked fine this time, so there perhaps some
> problem with the binary p
> If you're running XFree86 4.1,
No, I'm running 4.2. Yesterday I bit the bullet and downloaded the
entire source tree (quite an adventure down a phone line ...) and
built from source. All worked fine this time, so there perhaps some
problem with the binary packages on SF? Perhaps there's a depen
On Wed, 2002-06-19 at 17:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Just upgraded to the latest radeon dri-cvs (using the binary packages
> on SF) and now the X server won't start. This used to work fine with
> the 20 May TCL snapshot.
>
> The kernel module seems to load OK:
>
> Jun 19 16:30:36 localhos
