This gives me absolutely _zero_ information to go on.  I don't have
an ia64, so it is already hard enough to work on ia64 related bugs.

1) I have no idea what video card was used whatsoever
2) I have no idea what problems were encountered

This is like calling the mechanic, leaving a message on his answering
machine and saying "my car doesn't work, what's wrong" then hanging
up the phone, and expecting him to fix it, having no idea what car
you're talking about, or who you are.

With _ALL_ XFree86 bug reports, I need the log file, the config file,
as well as the output of lspci -v and lspci -n, and a _specific_ problem
description.  "tests dont run" is meaningless to me.

This is not a bug in XFree86 itself. It was not intended to you to fix it. It's
assigned to jabbott because he maintains the redhatready certification tests.

We need to make the test aware of the version of XFree86 installed with the
stock 7.2 ia64 distribution. We don't have a (working) ia64 either.  The test
was run at IBM, and we just have the results. We need to modify this function to
accept all current (and as much as possible) future XFree86 versions to we can
later launch the correct command line for the test.

get_xf86_version
case "$XF86VERSION" in
    "3.3.6" | "4.0.1" | "3.3.6a" ) \
          startx -- :1 -bpp $DEVICE 2>>../`logfile` ;;
    "4.0.3" | "4.1.0" ) \
          startx -- :1 -depth $DEVICE 2>>../`logfile` ;;
    * ) \
          echo -n "Unknown version of XFree86 installed; test failed." ;
          exit 1 ;;
esac

get_xf86_version (){
        # Get the version of XFree86 that's currently configured.
        XF86VERSION=""
        /etc/X11/X -version &> $RHRDIR/$TESTNAME/XFree86-version.txt
        XF86VERSION=`grep "XFree86 Version"
$RHRDIR/$TESTNAME/XFree86-version.txt | awk '{print $3}'`
}

Hmm.  I wonder how the heck this bug showed up in XFree86 for me then.
Is this something new set up in bugzilla?

It seems to be some kind of bugzilla screwup perhaps then.  I apologize
for being abrasive above, as I have gotten 5 bug reports in the last 24
hours that I've looked at that contained zero info, and when I saw one
coming from a Red Hatter, it sort of set me off as one of those "you
should know better" type of things...  but in reality, it has turned
out to be one of those "Mike, watch WTF you're doing things."

/me inserts foot into mouth

Again, sorry for the blast of stupidity.

Current version is 4.2.0, next will be 4.3.0, etc...  there is a remote
possibility of each release having a .1 release as well, although unlikely
under the new numbering scheme.

Hope that helps.

I took a look at the version info output by XFree86 on ia64, and it spits out 4.1.0 
when run through the script. I'm not sure why this is freaking out.. Chris, could you 
please have the IBM person run the following on the server they're testing on:

/etc/X11/X -version &> /tmp/XFree86-version-ia64.txt

and attach that file to the bug.

Created attachment 45421 [details]
Your requested output...

Created attachment 45439 [details]
Replacement rhr-ddX script to replace /etc/init.d/rhr-ddX on failing systems.

Try using the above attached rhr-ddX script. Drop it in /etc/init.d and chmod +x
it and let me know if that helps.

-10 should fix this.