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

Bug#406058: failed to load module kbd

On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:32:49PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:

> > Package: xorg
> > Version: 1:7.1.0-9
> > Severity: critical
> > Justification: startup fails

> > I just dist-upgraded from woody to etch. When I tried to start X, I got:

> > failed to load module kbd

> > dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg did not help at all. Manually installing the
> > needed drivers for my system (xserver-xorg-video-i810 and
> > xserver-xorg-input-kbd) and *then* running dpkg-reconfigure helped.

> OK, I just reproduced this:
> on upgrade from sarge + xorg 6.9 backport (didn't try with plain sarge),
> based on Olaf's installed package list, aptitude pulls in
> xserver-xorg-input-acecad and fglrx-driver instead of
> xserver-xorg-input-all and xserver-xorg-video-all :(
> This system also had a backported apt and aptitude, so that might play a
> role here.

> But if I add "deb http://people.debian.org/~jcristau/xorg/ ./" to
> sources.list, the metapackages are pulled in (these packages are built
> with the change I made to the repo, which is to readd the metapackages
> alternatives to the depends).
> My understanding is that aptitude doesn't pull in recommends when
> upgrading a package (here xserver-xorg), which would explain why the
> upgrade from backports breaks.  Also, it would seem that etch's (and
> backport.org's) aptitude only pulls in one package to satisfy a virtual
> dependency, while my earlier testing suggested that sarge's aptitude
> pulled in all drivers.

So what should be done with this bug?  Should it be merged with bug #405639?
Do you think it needs to be treated as RC independently of bug #405639?
(FWIW, I don't; smooth upgrades from unofficial backports are absolutely not
RC in my book.)

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Reply to: