[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#500358: Fix found



Hi. I just wanted to weigh in and say that I've tried Max's fix on my
Ultra 5 and I can confirm that it works with the X server from lenny.

Before trying Max's kernel patch I also verified that X.org is
*broken* and unusable using the default kernel. This is true of the
X.org server included in Lenny as well as the 1.5.3 server in
experimental.

Looking at the patch it's clear that the original intention of the
kernel change was to clean out some seemingly crufty and dodgy old
code, but seeing that

1) the change is localized to SPARC machines;

2) it renders X.org unusable with Ultra 5s, and highly probably Ultra
10s as they're virtually the same, as well as an unknown set of other
machines;

3) Ultra 5s and Ultra 10s seem to remain the most popular SPARC
machines for the desktop (and therefore the set of SPARC machines
likely to have X.org installed)

it doesn't seem reasonable to release stable Debian system with this
problem in it on the academic grounds that "it's X.org's fault." 

This is a serious problem with Debian on SPARC. Assuming that Debian
really cares about SPARC, (particularly on the desktop) and I think
the project should do what needs to be done to make sure that this bug
doesn't make it into the released version of Lenny.

Someone mentioned not wanting to build their own kernel so I uploaded
the one I built to my web server. I tried to build it from the source
of linux-image-2.6.26, so that it would be identical to the Debian
kernel -- with the patch applied -- but I ran into problems running
dpkg-buildpackage. So instead I went with the usual
linux-source/make-kpkg route. 

I enabled just about everything though so it should be pretty similar
to a Debian kernel with respect to features. It is also built using
initrd.

<http://hafd.org/~jordanb/linux-image-2.6.26murat-custom_murat001_sparc.deb>

Sorry about the name. I got a bit carried away.

Thanks,

-- 
Jordan Bettis -- Chicago Il.


Reply to: