headers
john | 1 Aug 2004 11:17
Picon

Bug#262633: xnest: Cannot get visuals for OpenGL applications

Package: xnest
Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-4
Severity: important

Running the following program fails under Xnest.  It works fine on the parent
server, and xdpyinfo shows that the two have identical visuals.

#include <GL/glx.h>
#include <X11/Xlib.h>
#include <assert.h>

int
main()
{

  Display *dpy;
  int screen;
  XVisualInfo *vis=0;

  int attribs[]={GLX_RGBA,
			 
 		 GLX_RED_SIZE,   1,
 		 GLX_GREEN_SIZE, 1,
 		 GLX_BLUE_SIZE,  1,

 		 None
   };

										     dpy = XOpenDisplay(0);
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Loic Minier | 1 Aug 2004 17:38
Gravatar

Bug#262696: XF86Config-4 file permissions are overwritten

Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-6
Severity: normal

   Hi,

 It seems that when you dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86, the
 /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 file might be replaced by a newer version.  When
 this happens, the mode of the file is reset to 600, ie:
   bee# ls -l /etc/X11/XF86Config-4    
   -rw-r--r--  1 root root 3027 Aug  1 17:13 /etc/X11/XF86Config-4
   bee# dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86
   bee# ls -l /etc/X11/XF86Config-4     
   -rw-------  1 root root 2975 Aug  1 17:16 /etc/X11/XF86Config-4
   bee# umask
   022

 Is this normal behavior?  I think it would be best to preserve the
 original mode of the file, or document the behavior, but I could not
 find anything on the topic in the
 /usr/share/doc/{xserver-xfree86,xfree86-common}/ directories.

   Regards,

-- Package-specific info:

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Lionel Magallon | 1 Aug 2004 19:40
Picon
Favicon

Bug#262712: xdm hangs at kde logout when using pam_ldap

Package: xdm
Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-4

Debian : testing (sarge)
Kernel : 2.4.26-1-k7
Libc : 2.3.2-1

xdm hang after a kde logout when I'm using it with pam_ldap :
/etc/pam.d/common-account :
#
# /etc/pam.d/common-account - authorization settings common to all servic=
es
#
# This file is included from other service-specific PAM config files,
# and should contain a list of the authorization modules that define
# the central access policy for use on the system. The default is to
# only deny service to users whose accounts are expired in /etc/shadow.
#
account sufficient pam_ldap.so
account required pam_unix.so

/etc/pam.d/common-auth :
#
# /etc/pam.d/common-auth - authentication settings common to all services
#
# This file is included from other service-specific PAM config files,
# and should contain a list of the authentication modules that define
# the central authentication scheme for use on the system
# (e.g., /etc/shadow, LDAP, Kerberos, etc.). The default is to use the
# traditional Unix authentication mechanisms.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Joey Hess | 1 Aug 2004 21:52
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Upgrade report: woody->sarge

(Redirecting to correct lists.)

Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> 849 packages upgraded, 237 newly installed, 26 to remove and 4  not upgraded.
> 39 packages not fully installed or removed.
> Need to get 0B/626MB of archives. After unpacking 431MB will be used.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
> /usr/bin/perl: relocation error: /usr/lib/perl5/auto/Text/Iconv/Iconv.so: un
> defined symbol: Perl_Gthr_key_ptr
> 
> Then I started upgrading libc6 and perl with dpkg -i <list of packetnames>
>
> I uploaded the transscript to
> 
> http://alzental-castle2.homelinux.org/woody-sarge-update.txt.gz

It seems that our perl upgrade from woody to sarge is not robust if it
dies in the middle. The X problem below caused the first apt run to fail
with various parts of perl unpacked and not configured. Then it looks
like debconf (which uses Iconv) was unable to run. Probably a dpkg
--configure -a would have cleared this up; reinstalling perl manually
had the same result.

> dpkg told me the missing packages. I was quite happy that that worked out for 
> me, but there might be some users which can't do that. Could anybody look 
> into that glitch in more detail?
> 
> I uploaded the transscript to
> 
> http://alzental-castle2.homelinux.org/woody-sarge-update.txt.gz
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Daniel Stone | 2 Aug 2004 18:01
Picon
Favicon

Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?

[I am not on -legal; though I will read the archives, please CC.]

Hi guys,
We're trying to release X11R6.7.1 over at X.Org these days, but we've
hit a little roadbump.

As I'm sure you all know, XFree86 post-4.4RC2 bears a non-DFSG-free
licence, which makes it impossible for Debian to include. X.Org forked
from XFree86 immediately before the licence change, and continued
developing a monolithic X distribution, which led to X11R6.7, which was
released relatively recently.

Now, with a release only 23 days away (isn't this better already?),
we've hit a speedbump. It's been alleged in Debian circles that the
XFree86 autoconfig code is non-free[0], and I've filed a release-blocker
bug on X.Org[1] accordingly.

However, on the release call today, it was alleged that the code was
actually DFSG-free, and that the so-called 'X-Oz licence' bore no legal
problems whatsoever, and would be fine to go into main, or whatever[2].

As we're coming up to a release and thus need to close this issue
quickly, could -legal please comment on this issue for completeness? I
would really like comments from the peanut gallery, the cheap seats, the
people who aren't lawyers, the people who are lawyers, whoever.

Thought it might be a nice break from images without source, QPL, MPL,
whatever. I've included one of the licence statements below for
completeness[3].
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Daniel Stone | 2 Aug 2004 18:57
Picon
Favicon

Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?

On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Daniel Stone <daniels <at> debian.org> wrote:
> > However, on the release call today, it was alleged that the code was
> > actually DFSG-free, and that the so-called 'X-Oz licence' bore no legal
> > problems whatsoever, and would be fine to go into main, or whatever[2].
> 
> I'm a little confused here. There's an X-Oz licence that is almost
> identical to the XFree 1.1 license, and then there's what you've quoted
> at the bottom of this mail. This:

Welcome to the confusing morass of X licencing. I recommend vodka.

> > [XFree86 1.0 licence]
> 
> all seems harmless. If all the files in question have this text and
> there's no reason to believe that they've been doctored to do so, then I
> can't see any problems.

Cheers dude.

It turns out that the initial diffs from the X-Oz site contained the
1.1ish licence, but this does not, hence Branden/Nathaniel's confusion;
I thought that there had to be some fire to back the smoke up. :)

--

-- 
Daniel Stone                                                <daniels <at> debian.org>
Debian: the universal operating system                     http://www.debian.org
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Michael Poole | 2 Aug 2004 18:54

Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?

Daniel Stone writes:

> [3]:
> /*
>  * Copyright 2003 by David H. Dawes.
>  * Copyright 2003 by X-Oz Technologies.
>  * All rights reserved.
>  *
>  * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
>  * copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
>  * to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation
>  * the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,
>  * and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
>  * Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
>  * 
>  * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
>  * all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>  * 
>  * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
>  * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
>  * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.  IN NO EVENT SHALL
>  * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S) OR AUTHOR(S) BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
>  * OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
>  * ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
>  * OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
>  * 
>  * Except as contained in this notice, the name of the copyright holder(s)
>  * and author(s) shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote
>  * the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written
>  * authorization from the copyright holder(s) and author(s).
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sven Luther | 2 Aug 2004 19:11
Picon

Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?

On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:54:15PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Daniel Stone writes:
> 
> > [3]:
> > /*
> >  * Copyright 2003 by David H. Dawes.
> >  * Copyright 2003 by X-Oz Technologies.
> >  * All rights reserved.
> >  *
> >  * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
> >  * copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
> >  * to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation
> >  * the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,
> >  * and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
> >  * Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
> >  * 
> >  * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
> >  * all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> >  * 
> >  * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
> >  * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
> >  * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.  IN NO EVENT SHALL
> >  * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S) OR AUTHOR(S) BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
> >  * OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
> >  * ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
> >  * OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
> >  * 
> >  * Except as contained in this notice, the name of the copyright holder(s)
> >  * and author(s) shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote
> >  * the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Daniel Stone | 2 Aug 2004 19:10
Picon
Favicon

Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?

On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:11:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> I believe even the X-Oz licence did experience the addition of this
> problematic clause at some time, so this code could be a pre-change fork or
> something ? Daniel, what is in the COPYRIGHT or such file ? Could you paste
> that here ? 

There is no COPYRIGHT file; this is from
programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/getconfig, and
programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/common/xf86AutoConfig.c, from the X.Org CVS
tree (the monolithic one).

--

-- 
Daniel Stone                                                <daniels <at> debian.org>
Debian: the universal operating system                     http://www.debian.org
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jon Dowland | 2 Aug 2004 21:55

Bug#257515: lost my 'c' key in X

On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 04:44:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Dear bug submitter,
> 
> I have reports that an upgrade to the xfree86 4.3.0.dfsg.1-6 resolved this
> problem.
> 
> Can you confirm this?

I performed the same set of tests as for the previous version and I have come
up with the following results with dfsg.1-6:

model   layout  result
----------------------
pc10104 ukgb    e/c work; pound-sterling sign doesn't; errors to output
pc104   ukgb    e/c work; pound-sterling sign doesn't; errors to output
pc104   uk      e/c work; pound-sterling sign doesn't; errors to output
pc104   gb      works

Please note that the pound-sterling problem may be more complex than the
key problems I suffered in the original bug posting: I frequently have
problems with this symbol anyway, as a consequence of locales, UTF-8 etc. For
now I would like to disregard this :)

I have made observations with regards the errors reported to output by the X
server in a different email for this bug in an attempt to preserve the flow of
the thread, for those of us reading the report in a threaded mailer.

--

-- 
Jonathan Dowland
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane