last stable version of X

sentinel166 · 2009-09-28 19:54:45

Hi.
What is the last stable version of X avaible is archlinux ? Because X's log say me that this version isn't anymore supported.
Thanks.

graysky · 2009-09-28 20:38:26

I don't think Arch is using a stable Xorg server:

$ head -n 15 /var/log/Xorg.0.log

This is a pre-release version of the X server from The X.Org Foundation.
It is not supported in any way.
Bugs may be filed in the bugzilla at http://bugs.freedesktop.org/.
Select the "xorg" product for bugs you find in this release.
Before reporting bugs in pre-release versions please check the
latest version in the X.Org Foundation git repository.
See http://wiki.x.org/wiki/GitPage for git access instructions.

X.Org X Server 1.6.3.901 (1.6.4 RC 1)
Release Date: 2009-8-25
X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0
Build Operating System: Linux 2.6.30-ARCH x86_64 
Current Operating System: Linux novelty 2.6.30-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed Sep 9 14:16:44 CEST 2009 x86_64
Build Date: 04 September 2009  05:45:43PM

Last edited by graysky (2009-09-28 20:39:39)

ngoonee · 2009-09-28 22:55:52

sentinel166 wrote:

Hi.
What is the last stable version of X avaible is archlinux ? Because X's log say me that this version isn't anymore supported.
Thanks.

'Stable'?

I believe you need to read up on http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arc … #Modernity. There's no 'stable' as opposed to 'legacy' and 'bleeding-edge' except for a few unique packages.

sentinel166 · 2009-09-29 14:40:18

Stable simply means which will function at the first time. Because now, X can be auto-configured and it doesn't recognize the real dimensions of my screen.

Mr.Elendig · 2009-09-29 14:53:47

That is usually due to drivers and/or using vga instead of dvi. Some laptops also doesn't like to report the correct size to X.

Last edited by Mr.Elendig (2009-09-29 14:54:22)

ngoonee · 2009-09-29 22:46:03

sentinel166 wrote:

Stable simply means which will function at the first time. Because now, X can be auto-configured and it doesn't recognize the real dimensions of my screen.

1. To be brutally frank, if you want something working right on install without any configuration, you may be interested in another distro....

2. Linux is not perfect, some hardware combinations may require you to actually EDIT a configuration file to get them working properly. If that's too difficult, then see point 1.

3. If X is not working at all with some specific hardware, a quick google will show up many other examples of that and perhaps some workarounds, or at least the information that its a hopeless cause.

tomk · 2009-09-30 00:34:26

If you want old packages, go here.

Having said that - ngoonee rocks!

ngoonee · 2009-09-30 03:57:29

uhh... thanks?

grey · 2009-09-30 08:22:52

I agree with the general idea behind #6, but please don't understate the potential difficulty of point 2. Yes, most problems can be fixed by editing a config file, especially in Arch, and yes, doing the actual editing is usually trivial. But finding out which file to edit and how to edit it can take a lot of time/effort, even for experienced users.

*david_a* · 2009-09-30 17:08:32

From my point of view, I would not be so worried about a comment in the X log. The people who maintain essential items in Arch are careful to give you something that works properly.

X can certainly cause serious trouble and waste of time to get it working. This has nothing to do with Arch or any other distribution - it's just the nature of X itself.

(There is always the chance that some other Linux distribution may happen to configure X in a way that works fine on your setup. However, in the next release of that distribution their automatic X configuration may change too. Arch more or less forces you to take charge of the situation; irritating and inconvenient for this afternoon, but very good for next month and next year, because you will already know what's going on with your machine.)

In other words, it's almost certain that you're going to be forced to waste some time - you can only choose *when* you'd like to waste it, now or in the future.

P.S.: If you mostly prefer Arch, but you find another distro which runs the same version of X and works automatically for you, you can start up the other distro, copy the automatic X configuration from its Xorg.0.log (in the log, the part you want is clearly labelled "Automatic config starts here" or words to that effect), and use that as your xorg.conf in Arch.

grey · 2009-09-30 19:37:52

I just realized that the issue above with the unsupported pre-release version is about nothing. The reason we have 1.6.3.901 instead of 1.6.4 in the repositories is that nothing changed in the sources between RC1 and release, so the maintainer saw no reason to rebuild.

damjan · 2009-09-30 23:54:36

grey wrote:

I just realized that the issue above with the unsupported pre-release version is about nothing. The reason we have 1.6.3.901 instead of 1.6.4 in the repositories is that nothing changed in the sources between RC1 and release, so the maintainer saw no reason to rebuild.

Afaik the 1.6.4 release is considered a brown paper bag because of DGA handling bug (dicsussion here http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/x … 7413.html).

1.6.5 is expected soon

The other available release is 1.7rc3 (1.6.99.903)
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/x … 47420.html
which should soon become 1.7

combuster · 2009-09-30 23:59:32

Hopefully 1.7 will be out soon enough also...

grey · 2009-10-01 07:44:17

damjan: right. I mixed it up with 1.6.1.901 vs. 1.6.2.

combuster: I don't want 1.7, I want 1.6.5. I've been hoping for a decent, stable combination of kernel / xorg-server / intel driver to fall back to before things get into "heavy development mode" again. 2.6.31 / 1.6.3.901 / 2.8.1 actually comes close to that on my machine, so I had high hopes for 2.6.31 / 1.6.4 / 2.9.0.

ngoonee · 2009-10-01 09:35:18

grey wrote:

damjan: right. I mixed it up with 1.6.1.901 vs. 1.6.2.
combuster: I don't want 1.7, I want 1.6.5. I've been hoping for a decent, stable combination of kernel / xorg-server / intel driver to fall back to before things get into "heavy development mode" again. 2.6.31 / 1.6.3.901 / 2.8.1 actually comes close to that on my machine, so I had high hopes for 2.6.31 / 1.6.4 / 2.9.0.

$EDITOR /etc/pacman.conf

IgnorePkg = kernel26 xorg-server xf86-video-intel

combuster · 2009-10-01 09:44:41

Well i'm running mesa 7.7-devel, video-intel 2.9.0 and xserver 1.6.3 and apart from what it looks like a memory leak while playing urt (get's slower and slower in time) everything seems to be ok... That's the price you pay for running mesa from git...

xserver 1.7 should be out next Monday...

grey · 2009-10-01 22:35:14

So video-intel 2.9.0 is compatible with the current versions of xserver, mesa etc. ?
Sounds promising - I'll give it a try.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-09-28 19:54:45

last stable version of X

#2 2009-09-28 20:38:26

Re: last stable version of X

#3 2009-09-28 22:55:52

Re: last stable version of X

#4 2009-09-29 14:40:18

Re: last stable version of X

#5 2009-09-29 14:53:47

Re: last stable version of X

#6 2009-09-29 22:46:03

Re: last stable version of X

#7 2009-09-30 00:34:26

Re: last stable version of X

#8 2009-09-30 03:57:29

Re: last stable version of X

#9 2009-09-30 08:22:52

Re: last stable version of X

#10 2009-09-30 17:08:32

Re: last stable version of X

#11 2009-09-30 19:37:52

Re: last stable version of X

#12 2009-09-30 23:54:36

Re: last stable version of X

#13 2009-09-30 23:59:32

Re: last stable version of X

#14 2009-10-01 07:44:17

Re: last stable version of X

#15 2009-10-01 09:35:18

Re: last stable version of X

#16 2009-10-01 09:44:41

Re: last stable version of X

#17 2009-10-01 22:35:14

Re: last stable version of X

Board footer