Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

archman-cro · 2010-06-21 08:35:53

dcc24 wrote:

archman-cro wrote:
I only need to find out about this HALless automounting for thunar...
Thunar - and xfce in general - won't have "HALlessness" until xfce 4.8, which won't be coming for several months. Xfce is the only thing keeping me from removing HAL completely.
pacman -Qi hal says:
Required By : exo thunar xfce4-power-manager
All of which are xfce stuff

Seems like it's time to switch to PCmanFM...
EDIT: PCmanFM requires some daemon AND HAL, so...no.
I should just add a keybinding to mount/unmount, so I don't have to mount-umount stuff all the time...

Last edited by archman-cro (2010-06-21 08:51:52)

jocheem67 · 2010-06-21 08:48:56

Just upgraded 3 boxes. No probs so far. Hal is blacklisted, just to see if I can go without it.
Maintainers did a great job!!!!!

twarkie · 2010-06-21 08:55:30

Upgraded even though I have a nvidia card. Just wanted to check if it worked before I went to the beta package from AUR. And guess what? It works perfectly. No problems whatsoever.

Vojtěch · 2010-06-21 09:40:45

offline15 wrote:

I cant start X anymore after upgrating
...
What i see after running X is black screen.

Hi, Look at these lines:
(II) LoadModule: "intel"
(II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/intel_drv.so
(II) Module intel: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
compiled for 1.7.6, module version = 2.11.901
Module class: X.Org Video Driver
ABI class: X.Org Video Driver, version 6.0
(EE) module ABI major version (6) doesn't match the server's version (7)
(II) UnloadModule: "intel"
(II) Unloading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/intel_drv.so
(EE) Failed to load module "intel" (module requirement mismatch, 0)

Your problem is in your intel driver, which is not compatible with Xorg 1.8 - module requirement mismatch. Just install standard xf86-video-intel from extra and all should be ok for you.
If you have problem with logging into machine, just add " 3" to end of your boot grub boot line.
Hope it helps.

offline15 · 2010-06-21 10:40:05

Vojtěch, thank you. I was using xf86-video-intel-newest from aur. When i replaced it to default xf86-video-intel package, everithing started to work.

daspostloch · 2010-06-21 10:46:36

Oh my, I must have something similar.
And I am fairly new to all of this... so help appreciated!
(i am copying by hand to work machine, so only important parts here...)

# pacman -Qs video-
local/xf-video-intel 2.10.0-1
...
local/xf-video-vesa 2.3.0-1

(is that correct that i have two of these?)

then, /var/log/Xorg.0.log :

intel and vesa seem to load fine,
but then there is a warning upon fbdev (warning, couldn't open module fbdev),
it gets unloaded again.
and then there is an error message for failing to load fbdev.
A bit later it says, falling back to old probe method for vesa...

any thoughts?
btw., i use xorg without xorg.conf, is that supposed to be outdated
now?

thanks guys

brain0 · 2010-06-21 10:49:10

daspostloch wrote:

Oh my, I must have something similar.
And I am fairly new to all of this... so help appreciated!
(i am copying by hand to work machine, so only important parts here...)
# pacman -Qs video-
local/xf-video-intel 2.10.0-1
...

You need xf86-video-intel 2.11.0-2, no idea how you ended up with an older version.

Sertse · 2010-06-21 11:15:08

gah! I moved from xorg.conf to fdi and now I need to learn this new config too!

daspostloch · 2010-06-21 11:15:10

praise the lord, someone is hearing me... !
ok so i upgraded everything and it is now 2.11.0-2
probably some mirror strangeness
However, I now cannot even start x anymore (before,
i had a black screen with mouse);
> startx
/etc/X11/xinit/xserverrc: line 1: /usr/bin/X: No such file or directory
xinit: No such file or directory (errno 2): unable to connect to X server
xinit: No such file or directory (errno 3): Server error.

so in the process of updating, my xorg-server was removed.
Was that another mistake maybe?

flamelab · 2010-06-21 14:08:23

I have started cleaning up the Xorg wiki page from (deprecated) HAL-specific info, I would need some help on that ...!

Thanks to the guys that have already written Xorg-server 1.8 info (xorg.conf.d etc)

n0dix · 2010-06-21 15:57:56

I just upgraded my system, and i just want to say that there is not a problem in my system so far

Great work guys.

cheers.

moljac024 · 2010-06-21 16:10:11

Compiz is kind of broken with this new Xorg.
It has lags and redrawing issues...

Perry3D · 2010-06-21 16:27:46

moljac024 wrote:

Compiz is kind of broken with this new Xorg.
It has lags and redrawing issues...

Which driver are you using?

combuster · 2010-06-21 16:27:51

Start it with indirect rendering...

saline · 2010-06-21 16:37:23

daspostloch wrote:

so in the process of updating, my xorg-server was removed.
Was that another mistake maybe?

Yes.
sudo pacman -S xorg-server

ssri · 2010-06-21 16:52:45

Been running xorg-server 1.8 for a few weeks on my laptop with an ATi r500 videochip (xf86-video-ati 6.13.0). I'm having considerably less problems with 1.8 than 1.7.6. I did encounter some strangeness at first, but I found out that I was using xf86-video-ati-git from aur, where a few recent commits made the driver a little buggy. Replacing it with the testing driver (now extra) fixed everything. All in all, a very smooth transition, thanks devs!

Foucault · 2010-06-21 17:01:48

Upgrade was smooth, everything worked out of the box. Hopefully the 1.8-compatible 173.xx nvidia driver will be out soon so most of the problems should be ironed out.

m7d1 · 2010-06-21 17:35:58

smooth upgrade, thanks for arch developers

Minishark · 2010-06-21 18:11:30

Upgraded last night, absolutely no problems yet. I'm using a ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 with the open source drivers. Thanks devs!

gabe_ · 2010-06-21 19:03:15

Any other intel users experiencing abysmal 3D performance? I've seen some bug reports, but they all seem to be relating to Compiz. I know glxgears isn't a benchmark, but...

$ glxgears 
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh.  The framerate should be
approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
210 frames in 5.0 seconds = 41.760 FPS
138 frames in 5.0 seconds = 27.369 FPS
137 frames in 5.0 seconds = 27.295 FPS
139 frames in 5.0 seconds = 27.717 FPS
140 frames in 5.0 seconds = 27.899 FPS

This little eeePC was never a 3D powerhouse, but in top running condition I was consistently getting somewhere around 140fps. 2D performance also seems to be a bit sluggish.

The results are the same with or without my xorg.conf. There is nothing sticking out in Xorg.0.log (no (WW)'s or (EE)'s).

That said, I would be happy to post any logs/confs if they would be of help.

Last edited by gabe_ (2010-06-21 20:21:27)

litemotiv · 2010-06-21 19:33:41

so if i understand it correctly: first a lot of effort was put into making xorg.conf superfluous and putting everything into hal.policies, now hal is deprecated so we need to grab all our hal.policies and stuff them back into xorg.conf..?

Inxsible · 2010-06-21 19:34:36

litemotiv wrote:

so if i understand it correctly: first a lot of effort was put into making xorg.conf superfluous and putting everything into hal.policies, now hal is deprecated so we need to grab all our hal.policies and stuff them back into xorg.conf..?

Ummm. .... No. whatever gave you that idea?

I have xorg18, and still no xorg.conf

litemotiv · 2010-06-21 19:46:33

Inxsible wrote:

litemotiv wrote:
so if i understand it correctly: first a lot of effort was put into making xorg.conf superfluous and putting everything into hal.policies, now hal is deprecated so we need to grab all our hal.policies and stuff them back into xorg.conf..?
Ummm. .... No. whatever gave you that idea?
I have xorg18, and still no xorg.conf

from the wiki:

The X server essentially treats the collection of configuration files as one big file with entries from xorg.conf at the end. Users are encouraged to put custom configuration into /etc/X11/xorg.conf and leave the directory for configuration snippets provided by the distribution.

Inxsible · 2010-06-21 19:54:55

then again, wiki also says :

Note: Current versions of Xorg effectively auto-detects most hardware without previous configuration. Because of these improvements, it is recommended that you start without a xorg.conf and add sections only as required. It is advisable that you use an xorg.conf only if you encounter problems with your configuration or if you want to enable some additional settings.

So yes, if you want custom configurations with your X screens, then you might need a minimal xorg.conf. In all honesty, I much prefer xorg.conf to the nightmarish hal fdi policies.

There were many a times, that I would create a policy and then it would disappear, and I would have to re-create them.

Last edited by Inxsible (2010-06-21 19:55:20)

litemotiv · 2010-06-21 20:27:11

Inxsible wrote:

then again, wiki also says :
So yes, if you want custom configurations with your X screens, then you might need a minimal xorg.conf. In all honesty, I much prefer xorg.conf to the nightmarish hal fdi policies.
There were many a times, that I would create a policy and then it would disappear, and I would have to re-create them.

yea i know, i just thought it was a little ironic

Arch Linux

#26 2010-06-21 08:35:53

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#27 2010-06-21 08:48:56

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#28 2010-06-21 08:55:30

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#29 2010-06-21 09:40:45

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#30 2010-06-21 10:40:05

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#31 2010-06-21 10:46:36

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#32 2010-06-21 10:49:10

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#33 2010-06-21 11:15:08

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#34 2010-06-21 11:15:10

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#35 2010-06-21 14:08:23

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#36 2010-06-21 15:57:56

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#37 2010-06-21 16:10:11

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#38 2010-06-21 16:27:46

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#39 2010-06-21 16:27:51

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#40 2010-06-21 16:37:23

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#41 2010-06-21 16:52:45

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#42 2010-06-21 17:01:48

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#43 2010-06-21 17:35:58

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#44 2010-06-21 18:11:30

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#45 2010-06-21 19:03:15

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#46 2010-06-21 19:33:41

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#47 2010-06-21 19:34:36

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#48 2010-06-21 19:46:33

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#49 2010-06-21 19:54:55

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

#50 2010-06-21 20:27:11

Re: Xorg 1.8 moves to extra

Board footer