From nobody Sun May 28 18:45:41 2023 X-Original-To: freebsd-current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4QTngL1P1zz4XkVs; Sun, 28 May 2023 18:46:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mad@madpilot.net) Received: from mail.madpilot.net (vogon.madpilot.net [159.69.1.99]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4QTngK5CNbz3rm3; Sun, 28 May 2023 18:46:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mad@madpilot.net) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from mail (mail [IPv6:fd5c:5351:d272::3]) by mail.madpilot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4QTnfc4h2hz6yY6; Sun, 28 May 2023 20:45:44 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=madpilot.net; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject:date:date :message-id:received; s=bjowvop61wgh; t=1685299542; x= 1687113943; bh=7l2XY6/jtLzPmWCwv8qRsqz/soXWlvD60y6vgEH6zRI=; b=p 4LKtoVehLdG/uAELz6XC1+/ov1ijaoNR7Lgdr1XwnSP0fRtuLnjDPv2JEFlyUkRD uDY6LtqIaoXzLr0BOWAA/SjO1H2WEQuVvuIT7nqwDNkyy50li+7jPklJsxEK4Ycb GGg1tHvKJvKWd/kzCSfQcTHS+L7/uoQnqpvjBQat3aTw0UbHG85i9C0gWSUhvxHZ LsHUh+Y+EZd0jnw4YWvmPT4hVH+HTznYvGYhkpNR40IRRy9LlHWEDkIGs/jUZKHn YJO0bu+hHbcejQkKimajjisqePOeDQlva9TVnFe048ZuV+BB3qpG0quC2jTqW2kH 1TWp7bLvEnPiuZqvcXaPA== Received: from mail.madpilot.net ([IPv6:fd5c:5351:d272::3]) by mail (mail.madpilot.net [IPv6:fd5c:5351:d272::3]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id C_jaIEOBpVHQ; Sun, 28 May 2023 20:45:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <0d4e3bda-4ef3-2b22-0a95-319f7f9baf23@madpilot.net> Date: Sun, 28 May 2023 20:45:41 +0200 Subject: Re: Help request: strange issue with xfce xfwm4 on AMD hardware, running head To: Warner Losh Cc: Alastair Hogge , FreeBSD Current , FreeBSD Current References: <0edab5e7-70db-9b32-39da-54b1503ab824@madpilot.net> <2931778c-9d23-90b8-719f-e34cfa41f188@madpilot.net> <226125B8-01E1-44B2-956B-A3CCECF56F7A@riseup.net> <0bc444f5-b078-6874-8655-999dd0e2a68d@madpilot.net> <1635751e73bb8c4c600de231c8d43018@riseup.net> <26a8e862-0d51-b3b3-09c1-4a6193bea60b@madpilot.net> Content-Language: en-US From: Guido Falsi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4QTngK5CNbz3rm3 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:159.69.0.0/16, country:DE] X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org On 28/05/23 18:22, Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Sun, May 28, 2023, 9:20 AM Guido Falsi > wrote: > > On 28/05/23 16:41, Warner Losh wrote: > > Sill questions.  Did you update only some of your packages? You > really > > need to update them all at the same time to have them be compatible. > > Some projects have a fast moving abi they don't keep compatible > very well. > > > > I'm running FreeBSD head here, using pkgbase. I upgraded a few base > packages (I create them with poudriere). > > I also updated the ports tree and updated other ports using the > resulting binaries (also created with poudriere) > > The pkgs that were updated when xfwm4 stopped working were listed in my > first post [1]. > > > So not all of the non pkg base packages? Have you tried updating them > all? Or you did update them all and the list of what updated was in the > post? I read it when first posted and again now and am unsure which it is... > > It may well be something broke... but I'm just wanting to be double sure > it's against a consistent package set. If something broke, then I can't > help. I see, I did not understand what you meant at first. What I posted was the result of a simple "pkg upgrade", which is what I usually do to update the machine, and usually works quite fine. I have not tested forcing all packages reinstallation ("pkg upgrade -f" if I get it correctly). That is something I was already planning to do. Will report back tomorrow for that. -- Guido Falsi