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

Bug#367044: marked as done (xserver-xorg: please re-enable lbx support)

Your message dated Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:54:56 +0300
with message-id <20060812175456.GM5396@fooishbar.org>
and subject line lbx removed upstream
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: xserver-xorg
Severity: normal

Hi,

Whilst trying to get LBX support to work with the latest X.Org packets in
Debian unstable, lbxproxy kept telling me that the LBX extension was not
available on my client's xserver.

Digging around I did indeed find that the LBX extension was not loading in
my /var/log/Xorg.0.log file but yet I have libext6 installed which is ment
to supply such goodness.

Digging through Google I happened upon a patch being applied that actually
turned off LBX support, but I could not find any reason why this had been
done.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2005/12/msg00212.html

Any chance of turning it back on?  

Cheers

Alex

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-ck9
Locale: LANG=en_GB, LC_CTYPE=en_GB (charmap=ISO-8859-1)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,
We've now removed all traces of LBX upstream.  It's a woefully
inefficient compression method (see the paper quoted in this thread):
you're best off using ssh -X.

Cheers,
Daniel

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: