Very Computer

Installed OpenBSD 2.9, all packages.
Downloaded 2.9.tar.gz patch file and applied patches. When I came upon
patch 009 I had to install sources, so I grabbed my OpenBSD CDs and
installed XF4.tar.gz onto /usr
Then, I aplied the patch, no problem. Typed "make" and after about 30
minutes, I get a douzen of errors in the Makefile and compilation
fails.
Where's the problem ?

I got a clean and complete OpenBSD 2.9 install from OpenBSD CDs
Got src.tar.gz and syssrc.tar.gz and XF4.tar.gz installed no problem.
Patch applied, no error but make fails ?!

If someone here has a Radeon All in Wonder, could he/she send me its
XF86Config file so I can move on and stop loosing time with that
crappy X ? :P
Thanks for help. My email is above.

--
Gilb

  Sounds as if either the patch is not correct, or your XF4 installation is
not, or some other include-file problem, perhaps. Why not bug report it, and
get someone who knows the patch to respond to you?

--

This can't be. I have bought an original OpenBSD release. I have
copied the XF4.tar.gz from the CD, and then tar zxf XF4.tar.gz when
I'm in /usr
So I end up with XF4 in /usr (/usr/XF4). I have also detarred the
sources and sources for kernel, into /usr/src
So I have a full install of OpenBSD 2.9 and all sources, including
XFree.
I then connected to ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD.. and I downloaded the
patches for release 2.9 which is the file 2.9.tar.gz
decompressed it and moved all files to /usr/src. Some patches are not
made from /usr/src, please don't tell me about that : I'm not a
complete newbie huh ! (well, I hope so ha ha) :o)

If the patch was bad, it would produce an error. If the XF4 sources
had a problem, the patch should/could have failed.
No, nothing of that. No problem with XF4 nor the 009 patch. I don't
know what's happening. I'm going to remove the /usr/XF4 and try to
compile WITHOUT the patch applied, so I'll know if the problem comes
from the patch. But this CAN'T BE : if the patch was bad, a LOT of
people would have told about it, it's around since a lot of time..
Unless no one applied the patch, which I strongly doubt of, because it
corrects a problem with the XF86Config file being generated. This is
insane.. Well, I have to really be sure there's a problem before
annoying developpers about a may-be-a-bug (and, besides, I must seek
how to report them the bug using the program or script made for that,
he he).

The problem is in your brain.

WHY didn't you send the *Y ERROR MESSAGES along with your message.
Your stuff is about as informative as:
`hey it doesn't work'.

If you are using a Radeon, you have no need for that patch anyway.  The
patch is needed only to configure X on systems which use XFree86-3.3.6
servers and the Radeon is NOT supported by XFree86-3.3.6.

" The XF86Setup(1) configuration tool for XFree86 3.3.6 is producing
corrupted /etc/XF86Config files. A source code patch exists which
remedies the problem by linking XF86Setup against the XFree86 3.3.6
version of libXxf86vm.a. "

Quote:> The problem is in your brain.

Well, if the problem is in my brain, indeed I don't need any help from
an OpenBSD newsgroup nor anyone else.
I'll just find a way to have it to work myself, just a matter of time.
Sorry to have disturbed or annoyed which may seem stupid questions,
and which are probably besides to someone more competent like you.
Sorry but I won't follow you in being malpolite or insulting in reply.
You didn't intend to be, probably, but I know I will never, ever
answer like you did to someone that needs help, and when I do answer
to someone's question about OpenBSD, whatever the question is, I
remain polite and I try to explain, you can search for some of my
messages on this newsgroup for examples. I may be to sensitive to "The
problem is in your brain" but I don't feel like it's a polite answer
to someone in "trouble". Well, let's say you had a bad day and I added
another drop to it but do me a favor : never ever write to me anymore,
thanks.

Well, I should have been reading the explanations on the errata page
of OpenBSD like you did, I'm sorry.
I just had the habit of downloading patches from the FTP server,
"head" the patch file and apply without asking myself if I really need
it, but since it's a patch I thought it wouldn't hurt.
When I do the xf86config thing, X launches but as soon I move the
XF86Config.new to /etc/X11/XF86Config and I launch X (startx) I get
the noscreens found, which looked to me as related to the XF86Config
trouble, and the motive for the patch.
You answer teaches me the problem is somewhere else, and it is
probably an error I do when configuring under xf86config.
Thanks for help, I'll figure it out by myself from now on. Thanks :-)

Hey, you don't need to figure things out by yourself!  I hope I didn't give
that impression and meant my answer to be totally neutral.  This NG is here
for help like that.

Try to configure X this way:

# XFree86 -configure

Then test the configuration as the screen tells you.  You should get a tiny
herringbone pattern (looks like just gray on a hi-res monitor) with a
movable mouse X.  If it's good then copy it to /etc/X11/XF86Config-4.

Quote:> Hey, you don't need to figure things out by yourself!  I hope I didn't give
> that impression and meant my answer to be totally neutral.

My "answer" for not for you but for "Espie", whoever he/she is.

Quote:> Try to configure X this way:

> # XFree86 -configure

Worked. I just modified the keyboard layout and selected Hi-Res VGA.
I later vi'ed the /etc/X/XF86Config to add the Axis mapping, a 24-bit
default bit depth and I'm currently running X which is better to have
some xterms.

Thanks for help,

--
G

He was right, you know.  When you have a problem, the system produces
error messages - usually.  And those messages are essential to
resolving the problem.

Marc is one of the hardest working people in the OpenBSD project and is
normally one of the nicest.  We all have our bad days.

I know he a nice guy, that's why I talked of a bad day and me adding a
drop to it when I shouldn't. Seems my ego didn't liked his answer
(well, I won't lie to all saying I don't have one, huh!). When this
happens, it is far better for each one of us to avoid talking and
waiting for all this to settle down. We'll move on and forget it,
anyway. Perhaps because most BSD users are more mature, or feel things
with some detachment, better for being cool and besides, I don't feel
like starting a flame war or a stupid troll about something as futile.

You will be assimilated :o)

(I didn't paste error message because I was convinced it *could not*
happen and that problem was somewhere else than in the sources - hope
I'll be understood for this point of view).

Can you please tell me what's wrong with my car?
It doesn't move.

Now, you tell me how anyone is supposed to be able to tell
me why my car doesn't move unless I give any information?
I can tell you lots of details on what brand it is, what
parking lot it's in but unless I give you details, you
prolly can't help me, can you?

So, telling us that you downloaded this-foo.tgz and unpacked
might feel like "giving all details" to you, but it's not.

People actually need more info than "it didn't work" or
"it didn't compile".

Until you realize that, the problem actually is in your end.

You _must_ realize that more info is needed if you want a
solution. Those who actually know and can fix XFree compile
problems doesn't have time to do:

You: I have a problem.
Fixer: What's that?
You: It doesn't compile
Fixer: Does it give any error messages?
You: Yes.
Fixer: Which?
You: Some 10 lines of errors.
Fixer: Could you give them to me?
You: Yes.
Fixer: Please do.
You: One line seemed to be "error: blablabla"
Fixer: You forgot to do this_and_that.
You: Ok, now it works.

If you had specified the actual errors, you could skip to
the last two-three lines in one go. And the fixers could
go on fixing bugs instead of holding your hand, walking you
through the teeedious task of doing your part of the work.

There aren't an enormous amount of OpenBSD developers, and
none of them get paid to hold your hand. Therefore, they
have to choose between holding ppls hands, OR developing.
Not both.

Now you think for a minute on what they should choose.
Or should have chosen in 1995. If they had chosen to
hold ppls hands, we would have been stuck with the 1995
version of OpenBSD today.

Unless you (and lots more) contribute, this decision will stand
as it is. They develop for their own needs, and they use what they
produce. They also give it away so that others might use it.
One of those happen to be you.

If you can come up with a decent reason why they should stop
developing and instead go for the 11-line dialog shown above
everytime someone messes up, please tell me, because I'd
REALLY want to know. Why is it that you are so important that
development should stop until your problem is fixed, so that
you may bugreport stuff without needing to give any relevant
information.

As one of the users of whatever the development team produces,
I think I deserve to read the answer to why developers should
bend backwards so that your hand can be held, instead of them
developing for everyones benfit.

Quote:> and which are probably besides to someone more competent like you.

8^D

For everyone else, sorry for the rant. I just felt I had to.

--
-"Some mornings it's just not worth gnawing through the straps."