Description of problem: bzflag failed to start. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): bzflag-2.0.8-8.fc8 mesa-libGLU-7.0.1-7.fc8 mesa-libGL-devel-7.0.1-7.fc8 mesa-libGL-7.0.1-7.fc8 mesa-libGLU-devel-7.0.1-7.fc8 xorg-x11-filesystem-7.1-2.fc6 xorg-x11-fonts-misc-7.2-3.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-magictouch-1.0.0.5-5.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-vmware-10.15.2-1.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-magellan-1.1.0-4.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-savage-2.1.3-1.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-mga-1.4.6.1-6.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-sis-0.9.3-4.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-nv-2.1.5-2.fc8 xorg-x11-server-utils-7.3-2.fc8 xorg-x11-utils-7.3-1.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-aiptek-1.0.1-5.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-s3virge-1.9.1-5.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-acecad-1.1.0-5.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-sisusb-0.8.1-9.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-digitaledge-1.1.0-4.fc8 xorg-x11-docs-1.3-1.fc7 xorg-x11-xkb-utils-7.2-3.fc8 xorg-x11-apps-7.3-1.fc8 xorg-x11-proto-devel-7.3-3.fc8 xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi-7.2-3.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-vesa-1.3.0-10.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-elographics-1.1.0-4.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-ark-0.6.0-6.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-tek4957-1.1.0-4.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-i128-1.2.1-1.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-amd-0.0-22.20070625.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-fpit-1.1.0-4.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-microtouch-1.1.0-2.fc7 xorg-x11-drv-voodoo-1.1.1-1.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-citron-2.2.0-2.fc7 xorg-x11-drv-cirrus-1.1.0-5.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-siliconmotion-1.5.1-3.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-dynapro-1.1.0-3.fc7 xorg-x11-drv-v4l-0.1.1-8.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-mutouch-1.1.0-5.fc8 xorg-x11-xdm-1.1.6-2.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-ati-6.7.196-4.fc8 xorg-x11-util-macros-1.1.5-1.fc7 xorg-x11-xauth-1.0.2-3.fc8 xorg-x11-font-utils-7.2-2.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-void-1.1.1-6.fc8 xorg-x11-fonts-Type1-7.2-3.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-evdev-1.1.2-5.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-keyboard-1.2.2-2.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-neomagic-1.1.1-4.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-hyperpen-1.1.0-5.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-dmc-1.1.0-3.fc7 xorg-x11-drv-palmax-1.1.0-4.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-ast-0.81.0-6.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-fbdev-0.3.1-4.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-chips-1.1.1-5.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-avivo-0.0.1-6.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-jamstudio-1.1.0-4.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-ur98-1.1.0-4.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-spaceorb-1.1.0-4.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-via-0.2.2-4.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-i740-1.1.0-5.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-cyrix-1.1.0-5.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-summa-1.1.0-4.fc8 xorg-x11-drivers-7.2-9.fc8 xorg-x11-xinit-1.0.7-2.fc8 xorg-x11-fonts-truetype-7.2-3.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-mouse-1.2.3-1.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-nouveau-2.1.5-2.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-i810-2.1.1-7.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-trident-1.2.3-6.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-calcomp-1.1.0-4.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-tdfx-1.3.0-6.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-apm-1.1.1-7.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-glint-1.1.1-7.fc8 xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.3.0.0-37.fc8 xorg-x11-twm-1.0.3-1.fc8 xorg-x11-xtrans-devel-1.0.3-5.fc8 xorg-x11-fonts-100dpi-7.2-3.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-penmount-1.1.0-3.fc7 xorg-x11-drv-rendition-4.1.3-5.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-nsc-2.8.1-4.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-tseng-1.1.0-7.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-s3-0.5.0-5.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-vmmouse-12.4.3-1.fc8 xorg-x11-drv-dummy-0.2.0-5.fc8 How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. just start bzflag Actual results: X Error of failed request: BadValue (integer parameter out of range for operation) Major opcode of failed request: 134 (XFree86-VidModeExtension) Minor opcode of failed request: 10 (XF86VidModeSwitchToMode) Value in failed request: 0x77 Serial number of failed request: 148 Current serial number in output stream: 150 Additional info: xorg.conf: # Xorg configuration created by pyxf86config Section "ServerLayout" Identifier "Default Layout" Screen 0 "Screen0" 0 0 InputDevice "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard" EndSection Section "InputDevice" Identifier "Keyboard0" Driver "kbd" Option "XkbModel" "pc105" Option "XkbLayout" "pl" EndSection Section "Device" Identifier "Videocard0" Driver "intel" EndSection Section "Screen" Identifier "Screen0" Device "Videocard0" DefaultDepth 24 SubSection "Display" Viewport 0 0 Depth 24 EndSubSection EndSection
Created attachment 289794 [details] /var/log/Xorg.0.log
Created attachment 289796 [details] glxinfo output
Incidentally, I just requested bzflag-2.0.10-1.fc8 to be pushed to updates-testing. It hasn't got there yet, but you can grab it from: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=28319 Please check whether the problem still exists with this version.
(In reply to comment #3) The same problem still exists, no changes.
I suspect that bzflag tries to set a resolution for which your X server isn't configured. Please create a new attachment with your /etc/X11/xorg.conf (don't paste it into a comment) and if you have a bzflag configuration file ~/.bzf/2.0/config.cfg, then run the following command and paste its output: awk '/^[^#].*resolution/ { print; }' ~/.bzf/2.0/config.cfg
Just noticed you've already pasted your xorg.conf. Please _attach_ your /var/log/Xorg.0.log instead. Thanks.
(In reply to comment #6) > Just noticed you've already pasted your xorg.conf. Please _attach_ your > /var/log/Xorg.0.log instead. Thanks. It's also already attached :-). Please see attachment #289794 [details]. (In reply to comment #5) > ... "if you have a bzflag configuration file ~/.bzf/2.0/config.cfg" Just for information, I don't have user specific bzflag configuration file. (In reply to comment #5) > I suspect that bzflag tries to set a resolution for which your X server isn't > configured. It's strange, because a year or two ago, on the same hardware (fedora rawhide - before the fedora 6 or 7 was released) bzflag run perfectly.
I'm rebuilding the current version of bzflag without SDL to work around SDL breakage in this area.
It seems that it was bzflag-induced SDL breakage (bzflag asked SDL to do something it couldn't, it didn't correctly look for the resolution to set). A hopefully fixed version builds at the moment.
Created attachment 311460 [details] patch which fixes finding resolutions at startup
bzflag-2.0.12-3.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update bzflag'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/FEDORA-2008-6182
Now I'm using the FC9, thus I've tried to test it using the update version from rawhide: bzflag-2.0.12-3.fc10.i386 and it gives me the same output: X Error of failed request: BadValue (integer parameter out of range for operation) Major opcode of failed request: 134 (XFree86-VidModeExtension) Minor opcode of failed request: 10 (XF86VidModeSwitchToMode) Value in failed request: 0xa7 Serial number of failed request: 149 Current serial number in output stream: 151
(In reply to comment #12) > Now I'm using the FC9, thus I've tried to test it using the update version > from rawhide: bzflag-2.0.12-3.fc10.i386 You really should be testing bzflag-2.0.12-3.fc9 which is available at the same places. Rawhide packages aren't guaranteed to work on older/stable releases. > and it gives me the same output: > > X Error of failed request: BadValue (integer parameter out of range for operation) > Major opcode of failed request: 134 (XFree86-VidModeExtension) > Minor opcode of failed request: 10 (XF86VidModeSwitchToMode) > Value in failed request: 0xa7 > Serial number of failed request: 149 > Current serial number in output stream: 151 > Hmm, this works for me now. Please check whether you can reproduce the problem with a clean test user account (i.e. whether it's a problem in your local configuration). Please attach a tarball/zip of your ~/.bzf directory (of the user where you have the problem).
(In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > You really should be testing bzflag-2.0.12-3.fc9 which is available at the I used the rawhide version only because yesterday, the "yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update bzflag" command didn't return updated version of the bzflag for the fc9. Nevertheless, today the fc9 version of bzflag gives exactly the same version. > Please attach a tarball/zip of your ~/.bzf directory (of the > user where you have the problem). As aforementioned in the comment #7, I don't have any user specific configuration. In other words, I removed the ~/.bzf directory before I run the bzflag.
I could reproduce the problem by removing the .bzf directory as well. I've found that SDL_ListModes() lists video modes not valid for my display (e.g. 1600x1200 while my max resolution is 1400x1050) which would explain why setting them doesn't work. I'll attach a small test program which exhibits the same problem: nils@wombat:~/test/sdl> ./sdl_listmodes mode: 1600 x 1200 mode: 1400 x 1050 mode: 1280 x 1024 mode: 1280 x 960 mode: 1152 x 864 mode: 1024 x 768 mode: 832 x 624 mode: 800 x 600 mode: 720 x 400 mode: 640 x 480 mode: 640 x 400 mode: 640 x 350 Thomas, would you please check why it finds these illegal resolutions? Thanks.
Created attachment 312030 [details] Program which calls SDL_ListModes() and lists the modes found build with: make CFLAGS="`sdl-config --cflags`" LDFLAGS="`sdl-config --libs`" sdl_listmodes
NB: this is SDL-1.2.13-3.fc9.x86_64
Created attachment 312048 [details] Test program for XF86VidModeGetAllModeLines. Build with: gcc -O -g -Wall -o x11_modelines x11_modelines.c -lX11 -lXxf86vm Are there illegal resolutions in the output for you?
It seems to be the case (1600x1200 again): nils@wombat:~/test/sdl> ./x11_modelines selected mode: 1400x1050 mode 0: 1400x1050 mode 1: 1600x1200 mode 2: 1600x1200 mode 3: 1600x1200 mode 4: 1600x1200 mode 5: 1600x1200 mode 6: 1600x1200 mode 7: 1600x1200 mode 8: 1600x1200 mode 9: 1600x1200 mode 10: 1400x1050 mode 11: 1280x1024 mode 12: 1280x1024 mode 13: 1280x1024 mode 14: 1280x960 mode 15: 1280x960 mode 16: 1152x864 mode 17: 1024x768 mode 18: 1024x768 mode 19: 1024x768 mode 20: 1024x768 mode 21: 1024x768 mode 22: 832x624 mode 23: 800x600 mode 24: 800x600 mode 25: 800x600 mode 26: 800x600 mode 27: 800x600 mode 28: 640x480 mode 29: 640x480 mode 30: 640x480 mode 31: 640x480 mode 32: 640x480 mode 33: 640x480 mode 34: 640x480 mode 35: 640x480 mode 36: 720x400 mode 37: 640x400 mode 38: 640x350
If it could help somehow, the output from x11_modelines on my machine is as follows: selected mode: 1600x1200 mode 0: 1600x1200 mode 1: 2048x1536 mode 2: 1920x1440 mode 3: 1920x1440 mode 4: 1920x1440 mode 5: 1856x1392 mode 6: 1856x1392 mode 7: 1792x1344 mode 8: 1792x1344 mode 9: 1600x1200 mode 10: 1600x1200 mode 11: 1600x1200 mode 12: 1600x1200 mode 13: 1600x1200 mode 14: 1600x1200 mode 15: 1600x1200 mode 16: 1400x1050 mode 17: 1400x1050 mode 18: 1280x1024 mode 19: 1280x1024 mode 20: 1280x1024 mode 21: 1280x1024 mode 22: 1280x1024 mode 23: 1280x960 mode 24: 1280x960 mode 25: 1152x864 mode 26: 1024x768 mode 27: 1024x768 mode 28: 1024x768 mode 29: 1024x768 mode 30: 1024x768 mode 31: 1024x768 mode 32: 832x624 mode 33: 800x600 mode 34: 800x600 mode 35: 800x600 mode 36: 800x600 mode 37: 800x600 mode 38: 800x600 mode 39: 640x480 mode 40: 640x480 mode 41: 640x480 mode 42: 640x480 mode 43: 640x480 mode 44: 640x480 mode 45: 640x480 mode 46: 640x480 mode 47: 720x400 mode 48: 720x400 mode 49: 720x400 mode 50: 640x400 mode 51: 640x350
Damian, what X11 driver do you use? And do you have custom set modes in /etc/X11/xorg.conf (e.g. 'Modes "1400x1050" "1360x768" "1280x1024" "1280x960" "1280x800" "1280x720" "1152x864" "1152x768" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"' in the Screen/Display section)?
(In reply to comment #21) > Damian, what X11 driver do you use? intel > And do you have custom set modes. No, I don't have any. Please find the dump of my xorg.conf configuration file in the beginning of this issue.
bzflag-2.0.12-3.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Argh, this shouldn't have been closed by the bzflag update.
bzflag-2.0.12-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
This is not a SDL problem, reassigning to xorg-x11.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 9. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '9'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 9's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
(In reply to comment #28) > If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it > against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this > bug to the applicable version. The same problem still happens on FC10 (bzflag.i386 0:2.0.12-3.fc10): $ bzflag X Error of failed request: BadValue (integer parameter out of range for operation) Major opcode of failed request: 134 (XFree86-VidModeExtension) Minor opcode of failed request: 10 (XF86VidModeSwitchToMode) Value in failed request: 0x9d Serial number of failed request: 149 Current serial number in output stream: 151
This message is a reminder that Fedora 10 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 10. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '10'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 10's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 10 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 10 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-12-17. Fedora 10 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.