Bug#248263: Detailed output isn't detailed
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:50:16AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> retitle 248263 xserver-xfree86: detailed output isn't detailed
> tag 248263 + moreinfo
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:36:44AM +0100, Chris Walker wrote:
> > Package: xserver-xfree86
> > Version: 4.3.0-7
> > The debconf screen displayed when the video driver doesn't work asks
> > if you would like to view the detailed X-server output as well - but
> > the screen you see is identical to the first (and doesn't include much
> > detail - certainly not what video card it thought it had detected).
> I'm afraid I have no idea what screen you're talking about.
Sorry about that. It was clear to me what I meant when I wrote it
but looking at it again, it isn't.
> Can you paste some of the exact language from the debconf template in
> question into a mail and follow-up to this bug report?
The below should be roughly correct - but I typed it in by hand, so
may have made errors.
"I cannot start the X server (your graphical interface). It is likely
that it is not set up correctly. Would you like to view the X server
output to diagnose the problem?"
If you click on yes, you get:
"This is a pre-release version of XFree86, and is not supported in any
way. Bugs may be rported to XFree86@Xfree86.org and patches submitted
to fixes@Xfree86.org. Before reporting bus in pre-release versions,
please check the latest version in the XFRee86 CVS repository
Xfree86 version 188.8.131.52 (Debian 4.3.0.dfsg.1-1 20040428170728
Release date: 15 August 2003
X Protocol Version 11,Revision0, Release 6.6
Build operating system: Linux 2.4.23 i686 [ELF]
Build Date: 28 April 2004
Before reporting problems, check http://www.XFree86.org/ to make
sure that you have the latest verion.
Module loader present
If you hit return, you get asked
"Would you like to see the detailed X server output as well?"
If you select Yes, you get a repeat of the above screen.
This is a) no more detail. B) not much use.
What you really want is the rest of /var/log/XFree86.0.log
In fact, it would seem that what you display is the head of this very
file - but only the first (and therefore not particularly useful bit).