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

Bug#318849: marked as done (XFree86 random crash)



Your message dated Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:10:50 +0200
with message-id <4626976A.70207@ens-lyon.org>
and subject line Bug#318849: XFree86 random crash
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: XFree86
Severity: important


it says to include all of /var/log/XFree86.0.log , but I can't very well include it here. no copy-and-paste on the terminal.
so I'll email it to submit@bugs.debian.org right after this, with the bug report number

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.10-1-686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Guys, bug #318849 is complete mess.

First, Greg reported a *random crash* of the X server, possibly an *old
xfree86*, on a *i686* machine, without ever providing the corresponding
configuration file and server output.
Then, Michael replied that he had a complete *lockup* of a *powerpc*
machine, running *X.org 7.0*, without providing files either.
And today, Olaf replied that he had (let's say) various dri-related
problems, either crash or kind of a *lockup of the server* (not of the
whole machine) on a *amd64* with *X.org 7.1*.

These reports look very different. I understand it is not easy to know
the difference between a crash of the server, a lockup of the server,
and a lockup of the machine. If you are not sure you are having the
exact same problem, please do not reply to one of the 200 bugs that look
a little bit like yours, and just open a new bug and let us merge if
needed. Not only the symptoms, but also the architecture, driver and
config are sometimes very important to distinguish two bugs.

Having 3 incomplete and different reports like those in a single makes
it kind of hard to read. So, I am closing this bug for now.

Greg and Michael, if you still experience your problem with an
up-to-date Etch system (or testing/unstable/experimental), please open a
new bug using the reportbug tool against the xserver-xorg-core package
(this is where the actual X server is, hence where bugs like crash or
lockup often are).

Olaf, I am sorry you already provided all the required information here,
but could you please reopen a new bug against xserver-xorg-core and
copy-paste everything you said here? For now, I don't see anything
obvious in your config (apart maybe from "UseFBDev" which does not seem
to be enabled anyway, so you might want to remove it).

Also, please note that there is a new Xserver (1.3.0-rc5) currently in
experimental (as xserver-xorg-core 2:1.2.99.905-3). You might want to
try it (also note that installing xserver-xorg-core-dbg might help
debugging in case of crash).

I hope you'll understand,
Brice


--- End Message ---

Reply to: