[ubuntu-x] Fatal server error: Couldn't bind memory for BO front buffer

[Tormod Volden]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Bryce Harrington <bryce at canonical.com> wrote:
> Hi Tormod, thanks for all the backporting work!

Well, if I had known Timo would be so fast to upgrade it all in
Jaunty, I wouldn't have done so much I guess :) My "edgy" stuff is
obsoleted after a few days. But that's good for progress!

>
> Would you be able to provide backported -intel 2.5 (and/or a 2.5-git*)
> for hardy and intrepid?

I already have post-2.5 intel packages for Hardy and Intrepid in the
xorg-edgers PPA. Since I don't have Intel hardware myself (Santa do
you hear me) I am depending on the feedback from other people to know
if it actually works. Sounds like some people have success.

What appears as 2.4.97 (intrepid) and 2.4.99.1 (hardy) is in fact from
git master so it's 2.6 alpha (or 2.7 alpha now that 2.6 has branched
off). The versions are just a result of the sloppy versioning in
upstream configure.ac and the archive constraints (increasing versions
only).

Because of this I can actually go back to 2.5.1 while bumping the
version. But I wish there was a way I could offer different branches.
I guess we need more PPAs :)

> One bug-work thing I have planned is to bulk-mail -intel bug reporters
> once Alpha-2 is out, and request they re-test.  Obviously they would be
> able to test against a jaunty live-cd, but I'd also like to give them
> the option of installing a backport of the current 2.5 driver for users
> that would like to test it on an existing intrepid or hardy install.

By the way, what's up with the daily-live, hasn't been updated for 3 weeks?

>
> The new libdrm makes it a bit tricky to provide the backports, but I was
> thinking since you already have them in the Edgers PPA, it might be a
> good place for providing these driver backports too?

Yes, that should work. We could also make a intel-testing PPA and only
push what's needed, but it would be pretty close to xorg-edgers I
guess.

Before we ask people to test with these builds we have to make sure
they actually work pretty well. I can start making the 2.5.1 packages
soonish and let you test.

>
> Based on prior experience with bulk-mail with retesting for -ati, we
> were able to get a bunch of bugs resolved.  I've got the scripts to send
> the bug mail, so just need the packages for folks to test.
>
> Bryce
>
> P.S. we could do the same again for -ati; what do you think?
>

Yes, the recent -ati changes are less revolutionary. The
straight-forward packages (no dependencies) in my personal PPA should
be fine for -ati testing.

Tormod