Hide Forgot
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040331 Description of problem: I compiled and installed (FC1) xorg-0.6.6-0.2004_03_30.1. I have an ATI Mobility 7500 video chip in my laptop. If I try to load the DRI module, I get the following error (non-dri works): Symbol gnu_dev_makedev from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/linux/libdrm.a is unresolved! Fatal Server error: Caught signal 4. Server aborting Any help greatly appreciated. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): xorg-0.6.6-0.2004_03_30.1 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Download xorg 2. Compile xorg 3. Install xorg 4. XF86Config = Load DRI Actual Results: Symbol gnu_dev_makedev from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/linux/libdrm.a is unresolved! Fatal Server error: Caught signal 4. Server aborting Expected Results: X server to start. Additional info:
Not sure how I managed to remove dkl@redhat.com as QA contact, must be a bug in bugzilla. Just trying to add myself to CC. Sorry about that -- could someone re-add? I don't have the capability.
It is a bug in bugzilla. ;o) The QA contact field is now empty below, and does not have a text box beside it with which to add it back. I've added dkl to the CC field instead. Coincidentally, dkl is our bugzilla maintainer, so... ;o) <conspiracy theory> It seems that the bug in bugzilla that triggers this, only ever removes "dkl" from the QA contact fields. Hmmm.... I wonder... <evil grin> ;o) </conspiracy theory>
I just noticed that this bug was filed against Fedora Core 1, not Fedora Core 2 test2. We do not support xorg-x11 installed on Fedora Core 1 at all. >Steps to Reproduce: >1. Download xorg >2. Compile xorg >3. Install xorg We also do not support user compiled packages. Download Fedora Core 2 test2 ISO CD images and either do a fresh OS install on a clean hard disk partition, or do an upgrade from whichever OS release you are using, to the current FC2 test2 release. Please do not file bug reports against packages that you have recompiled yourself. Thanks. Closing as "NOTABUG".
Uh, FC2 Test 2 CD is a no boot. Uh, its just a recompile of the src rpm that you maintain from the development depository. So its really not *user compiled*, unless you count yourself as a user. Uh, you do expect people to recompile the src rpm's, isn't that why they are provided? Uh, didn't you state in previous mailing lists that you wanted testing on both FC1 and FC2? Byte
> Uh, FC2 Test 2 CD is a no boot. If you're not able to boot FC2t2 in any way, then you can try installing directly from rawhide via instructions somewhere on the http://fedora.redhat.com website if you wish. I don't have a direct URL handy unfortunately. Alternatively you can ask on fedora-test-list@redhat.com how to do a direct install from rawhide. If that fails, then I guess all you can really do is wait for Fedora Core 2 test3 release, and hopefully whatever is preventing you from installing will be fixed by then. >Uh, its just a recompile of the src rpm that you maintain from the >development depository. So its really not *user compiled*, unless >you count yourself as a user. If you have recompiled the packages from src.rpm, then we do not support the resulting binary packages in any way. If you have problems of any kind while using the binary packages that you built from our src.rpm, you can join X.org X11 mailing lists to seek assistance for getting your binaries to work, or for isolating problems. You can also report bugs/problems you encounter to X.org directly by using the X.org bugzilla bug tracker located at: http://bugs.freedesktop.org - choose the "xorg" component. >Uh, you do expect people to recompile the src rpm's, isn't that why >they are provided? The src.rpm packages are provided because Red Hat builds the entire OS out of open source packages, and we include both binaries and source code packages to users. The GPL for example requires that sources be provided if you provide binaries. While other licenses do not require this, Red Hat provides the source code to everything in the entire OS, wether the particular licenses of a given piece of software actually require it or not. (On a side note, the X11 license does not require you to provide the source code). As such, we do provide the sources, and users are free to use those sources in any way they see fit, as long as they comply to the license terms that the particular software package is licensed under. In some cases, a given package may contain bits and pieces that are under different licenses, so users who are compiling and/or modifying the sources in any way, should investigate the specific detailed licenses of whichever source code packages they are interested in, to ensure that they are following the license agreements of the particular sources. Having said that, while you certainly have the right to download the source code, wether it is directly from our src.rpm, or directly from X.org, and you definitely have the right to recompile that source code, or to modify it in any way that the license terms of the software permit you to do - we do not have any obligation to support the resulting recompiled and/or modified software that you have built yourself. Note that this is not any change of policy in any way. Red Hat does not, and has never offered technical support nor bug tracking support for user recompiled packages. > Uh, didn't you state in previous mailing lists that you > wanted testing on both FC1 and FC2? I do not specifically recall either way wether I've said that or not. It's interesting to me personally to hear on our mailing lists about people's success and/or failure of Xorg X11 under different OS releases, wether they are using Red Hat supplied binaries, or using self-rebuilt rpms. Red Hat does not however "officially" support xorg-x11 on anything other than Fedora Core 2 test2. Any bug being reported about xorg-x11 needs to be confirmed to be a bug in Fedora Core 2 test2 by someone, using the official binary packages built by Red Hat and included in the test release. I do try to keep our X packages in a state that they compile on different OS releases, and they may actually compile and may actually work on older OS releases. I do that only as a convenience to both myself, and to anyone else who might try to compile it, in order to hopefully make their life easier, however I do not support the results. The sources are provided as-is only. If it causes too many problems, I'll disable the ability to compile it on older releases, and hard code requirements of Fedora Core 2 test2 in order to reduce the number of unsupported bug reports, but I would prefer to not have to do that, as it is useful.
You can post long winded diatribes which go nowhere, sign your name as OS Engineer, but yet unable to answer simple questions about the RPM you maintain. Instead of addressing the issue, and stating "Hey, I dont have a clue, I just throw code into an rpm", you detour on this tangent. LMAO. Byte