Description of Problem: I just upgraded to the latest rawhide version of X and it crashes every time I start it up. How Reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. startx 2. crash Actual Results: Crash. Here's the log: XFree86 Version 4.1.0 (Red Hat Linux release: 4.1.0-0.5.9) / X Window System (protocol Version 11, revision 0, vendor release 6510) Release Date: 2 June 2001 If the server is older than 6-12 months, or if your card is newer than the above date, look for a newer version before reporting problems. (See http://www.XFree86.Org/FAQ) Build Operating System: Linux 2.2.17-8smp i686 [ELF] Module Loader present (==) Log file: "/var/log/XFree86.0.log", Time: Mon Jun 18 22:53:03 2001 (==) Using config file: "/etc/X11/XF86Config-4" Markers: (--) probed, (**) from config file, (==) default setting, (++) from command line, (!!) notice, (II) informational, (WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown. (==) ServerLayout "XFree86 Configured" (**) |-->Screen "My Screen" (0) (**) | |-->Monitor "E95" (**) | |-->Device "ATI|Rage 128 RF" (**) |-->Input Device "Logitech Mouse" (**) |-->Input Device "IBM Keyboard" (**) Option "XkbLayout" "us" (**) XKB: layout: "us" (==) Keyboard: CustomKeycode disabled (**) FontPath set to "unix/:7100" (==) RgbPath set to "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/rgb" (==) ModulePath set to "/usr/X11R6/lib/modules" (**) Option "BlankTime" "5" (**) Option "StandbyTime" "10" (**) Option "SuspendTime" "20" (**) Option "OffTime" "30" (--) using VT number 7 (II) Open APM successful (II) Module ABI versions: XFree86 ANSI C Emulation: 0.1 XFree86 Video Driver: 0.4 XFree86 XInput driver : 0.2 XFree86 Server Extension : 0.1 XFree86 Font Renderer : 0.2 (II) Loader running on linux (II) LoadModule: "bitmap" (II) Loading /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a Not loading .rodata.str1.1 Not loading .rodata.str1.32 Not loading .rodata.cst8 Not loading .rodata.str1.1 Not loading .rodata.str1.32 Not loading .rodata.str1.1 Not loading .rodata.cst8 Not loading .rodata.str1.1 Not loading .rodata.str1.32 Not loading .rodata.str1.1 (II) Symbol .LC2 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC2 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC0 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC9 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC19 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC71 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC71 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC71 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC3 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC0 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC67 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC0 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC0 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC0 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC0 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC0 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC0 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC0 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC0 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC1 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC0 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Symbol .LC0 from module /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a is unresolved! Fatal server error: Caught signal 11. Server aborting When reporting a problem related to a server crash, please send the full server output, not just the last messages. This can be found in the log file "/var/log/XFree86.0.log". Please report problems to xfree86. Expected Results: Smoothly Operating X Server. Additional Information: The libbitmap.a file doesn't exist. This looks like it might be a package dependency issue. I am running an ATI Rage 128 Xpert. The version of X that I downloaded was XFree86-4.1.0-0.5.9.i386.rpm
I lied, libbitmap.a does exist.
Confirming this with G450. Downgrade to 4.1.0-0.0.1 helps. Now I do some recompiling and investigating ...
So I'm back. Recompilation of XFree86-4.1.0-0.5.9.src.rpm does solve the problem for me. (If anybody wants athlon optimized rpms - mail me). To Mr. Harris: there is one bug in ulT1mo-beta-1.0.tar.gz, there are two dirs without "execute" permission ...
same behavior confirmed on my install on IBM thinkpad w/ neomagic drivers seems to be core dumping somewhere.. I have a core file if you're interested..
Same symptoms here after upgrade from 4.1.0-0.0.1 to 4.1.0-0.5.9. My video card is a Matrox G400.
I just compiled the latest source from CVS from the xf-4_1_0 tag from xfree86.org and was able to get X to start up. However, something happened to the Netscape fonts. They all show up as boxes. It seems to only affect the controls -- so the menus, the text on the toolbars and the selection boxes in Bugzilla show up as boxes but the text on the page, and text that I enter in text boxes looks OK.
Same here on Riva TNT2
The problem rc5tv reports with Netscape is probably the same as bug 44948 regarding xfs being pickier about leading - characters. The libbitmap.a problem also seems to affect the i810 driver. I''m unclear why the reporter of 44948 got far enough to see a Netscape problem - do only some drivers reference libbitmap.a?
This bug is due to the string merging patches that were put into gcc breaking the XFree86 module loader. In other words, no modules can load. It is not a problem with any driver, but with the whole release. It is fixed in my internal build.
Does this mean that 'rpm --rebuild' off the SRPM will either work or not work, depending on which release of GCC is used? What releases are known to work/break? Latest RawHide gcc is gcc-2.96-88 - looks like I need to think about downgrading either XFree86 or gcc, but unsure which I should do....
i can reproduce it, too (with nvidia tnt2) after recompiling qith gcc-2.96-88 it is working, but there is now a problem with resolution greater than 1024x768: on the right side of the screen, there is a vertical bar (about 50pixels wide) with totally wrong pixels (with nv and nvidia driver)
If you rebuild with gcc that merges strings across entire binaries, you need to build with -fno-merge-constants
*** Bug 45246 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Reopening this until the packages are made available..
*** Bug 46431 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
4.1.0-0.8.6 in rawhide is the good stuff.
I am trying to upgrade to this version using the following RPMS: XFree86-4.1.0-0.8.6.i386.rpm XFree86-devel-4.1.0-0.8.6.i386.rpm XFree86-libs-4.1.0-0.8.6.i386.rpm XFree86-xfs-4.1.0-0.8.6.i386.rpm Mesa-3.4.2-2.i386.rpm and I get the following error: error: failed dependencies: Mesa >= 3:3.4.2-3 is needed by XFree86-4.1.0-0.8.6 libXxf86dga.so.1 is needed by XFree86-4.1.0-0.8.6 It looks like Rawhide is a version behind for Mesa. (And what is that colon in the version number?) I don't know what package contains libXxf86dga.so.1 but the SRPM looks like -- to my uneducated eyes -- that it will only install it if BuildExtraSharedLIbs is on but it is off by default.
I see Mesa-3.4.2-3.i386.rpm in Rawhide. You should get it. libXxf86dga.so.1 is in XFree86-compat-libs-4.0.3-2.i386.rpm, which is also in Rawhide.
jik is correct above about the compat package and the Mesa, but to answer your questions: Mesa package uses "Epoch" in RPM packaging. This is because we have Mesa 3.4.2 for XFree86 4.0.3, and for XFree86 4.1.0, however the Mesa for 4.0.3 and 4.1.0 are not the same package, and will NOT work with the other release of XFree86. So basically Mesa and XFree86 releases are VERY tightly coupled. Tight to the point where I have considered merging Mesa into XFree86, but when I did so it created more problems than it solved. So, Mesa remains separate at least until XFree86 4.2.0 at which point separate Mesa will possibly disappear. This means that we need a way to distinguish Mesa for 4.0.3 and Mesa for 4.1.0. This is done by giving Epoch 2 for the 4.0.3 package, and Epoch 3 for 4.1.0. XFree86 4.1.0 is made dependant on having a Mesa that is of epoch 3 which is specified as: Mesa 3:3.4.2-3 (the 3: specifies epoch 3). As for the lib DGA dependancy, this was a bug. I dunno how the package ended up dependant on dga, but the latest build is not (4.1.0-0.9.0). The only reason for the new XFree86-compat-libs package is to supply shared libs for libXv and libXxf86dga so that apps linked to them will still function. We no longer ship these libs for reasons listed in numerous bugzilla reports already to which I don't care to repeat again. You can query bugzilla for details. ;o) Note: Do not reopen closed bug reports with new bug details. If there is a new bug, open a new report. Marking resolved rawhide XFree86-4.1.0-0.9.0
Sorry, the above should read "Do not reopen an old bug report, unless it is because the old bug exists still. If you have a new bug, use a new bug report." The way I wrote the above is confusing. ;o) If you have an old bug and it is still there, but closed, then by all means, reopen and supply new info.
OK, I won't re-open this bug report. I downloaded Mesa from the beta ftp site instead of the normal ftp one and it is one release behind (i.e. beta is -2 but ftp.redhat.com is -3). So, the reason that I reopened it was because I couldn't verify the bug was fixed. Having downloaded Mesa....-3, it seems to be fixed. Your comment about the bug being fixed in 4.1.0-0.9.0. That was about the sub-bug that I reported here (and shouldn't have) not the original bug, right? Otherwise, I am going to complain about not being able to download it from either rawhide site.
Yes, it means the dependancy on libXxf86dga is fixed. It was a buildsystem glitch of some kind, and all that was needed was a rebuild, which occured when I built 0.9.0. For the record: "Fixed RAWHIDE" does not mean "you can download it this second", but rather it means "you can either get it now, or it will be in the next update of RAWHIDE". Shortened "will appear in future RAWHIDE release". Versioin numbers supplied, in general mean "Fixed in release 0.9.0 or greater" for example. Keeping a bug report open until it is publically available, when we know something is fixed, means that we have to constantly monitor the rawhide mirroring, and keep track of its schedule, which we do not (at least I do not). It also means I have an open bug list that is longer and I will get less work done. When I know a bug is fixed, I close it. If a user uses the release I say it is fixed in and it is not fixed, then that is what REOPEN is for. The process is much smoother this way. Hope that helps understand the admitedly semi-confusing bug states. We are discussing internally some possible bugzilla enhancements to improve this though. Take care, TTYL