xzgv in Fedora broken?

Paulo Cavalcanti promac at gmail.com
Wed Jan 7 14:14:15 UTC 2009


On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Paulo Cavalcanti <promac at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl>wrote:
>
>> Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Rahul Sundaram <
>>> sundaram at fedoraproject.org <mailto:sundaram at fedoraproject.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>
>>>        Note I'm looking in to fixing the xzgv thumbnails issue. Why? To
>>>        show that actually reporting problems helps I guess.
>>>
>>>
>>>    Thanks Hans. It is amazing, people who knew about the issue would be
>>>    not reporting the bug but be willing to build conflicting packages
>>>    in another repository.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please, Rahul
>>>
>>> xzgv does not impact anything.
>>>
>>
>> True, never the less I've fixed it: a gtk callback functions return value
>> was declared void while it should be gboolean and it should return TRUE,
>> that this worked with gcc3 is just plain luck.
>>
>> A patch is forth coming, I'm still looking into some of the thumbnails
>> being wrong for images whose width is not a multiple of 4. Its a
>> pitch/stride != width issue, and I've already located it, but it needs some
>> surgery to fix cleanly.
>>
>
> You are good. I thought it would take longer.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>  Once more, here is the fixed memtest86+ for F10. It works just fine (for
>>> me) even on new Intel G45.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/memtest86+-2.11-3.fc10.src.rpm<http://people.atrpms.net/%7Epcavalcanti/srpms/memtest86+-2.11-3.fc10.src.rpm>
>>>
>>>
>> Yes this is a more important issue, thanks for bringing it to our
>> attention. First of all it would help if you could post a patch with your
>> prepared fix, that is less cumbersome to take a quick peek then an srpm.
>> This is important because, for example yesterday I clicked at the bug report
>> you linked and when only seeing srpm's went on with other stuff. If there
>> would have been a patch attached I would have clicked it, and if it is
>> cleanly I would have tried to get it in to Fedora asap. But the srpm was
>> just too big of a hurdle (given that memtest is not a package I maintain,
>> nor is xzgv btw).
>>
>>
> Here are the differences using Fedora original spec (although the .src.rpm
> is slightly different):
>
> http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/patches/spec.patch<http://people.atrpms.net/%7Epcavalcanti/patches/spec.patch>
>
> http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/patches/setup.patch<http://people.atrpms.net/%7Epcavalcanti/patches/setup.patch>
>
> The fix is simple, and the grub entry is going to be this way:
>
>
> title Memtest86+ v2.11
>         kernel --type=netbsd /memtest86+-2.11
>
>
> It has been working fine for me, with a lot of different computers,
> for about two years.
>
>
>

I would like to add that I always have a /boot partition.

I never tested it with a different configuration (without /boot, for
instance) or
using lvm. Maybe nothing does change, but this is why I always avoided to
to get involved, because I do not have how to test all of the
configurations.


-- 
Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
LCG - UFRJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090107/0847e78a/attachment.htm>


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list