Sidux stability?

[Collins Richey]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:28 PM, dan <d.e.d.linux.lists at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Collins,
>
>
>  On Thursday 21 February 2008 00:21:05 Collins Richey wrote:
>  > However, Debian has introduced some changes to gtk+ and related
>  > graphics libraries that render mozilla browsers unstable.
>  I've checked the bug reports for iceweasel on debian.org and can't find
>  anything about mozilla browsers being rendered unstable. What bugs are you
>  referring to? I run sid here with iceweasel 2.0.0.12-1 and firefox 3beta 3
>  here and observe no unstable behavior whatsoever.
>

I wish I could give you better data. This began 2 weeks ago on both my
desktop and laptop machines after a dist-upgrade. I'm not used to
debugging problems with Firefox - it has always just worked. My
iceweasel is also at 2.0.0.12-1and swiftfox is 3.0b4pre (Pentium-M
variant for laptop and AMD dual core 32bit for the desktop).
Immediately after the dist-upgrade 2 weeks ago, neither iceweasel nor
swiftfox would start (starting with clean profile in each case). Some
improvement after next dist-upgrade.

One other user reported a similar problem, but was unable to debug. He reported.

goodrich at X41Laptop:~/.mozilla/firefox/88mvvcbl.default$ swiftfox --sync
The program 'gecko' received an X Window System error.
This probably reflects a bug in the program.
The error was 'BadAlloc (insufficient resources for operation)'.
  (Details: serial 64546 error_code 11 request_code 53 minor_code 0)
  (Note to programmers: normally, X errors are reported asynchronously;
   that is, you will receive the error a while after causing it.
   To debug your program, run it with the --sync command line
   option to change this behavior. You can then get a meaningful
   backtrace from your debugger if you break on the gdk_x_error() function.)

Both browsers die when accessing the following
http://www.howtoforge.com/mandriva-directory-server-on-debian-etch
http://www.howtoforge.com./


>
>  > Another thing that has changed for the worse lately is the fact that
>  > the great geniuses in debian land have decided to rework how the
>  > kernel upgrades are performed,
>  What do you mean by "have decided to rework how the kernel upgrades are
>  performed"? If they are doing something different with the upgrades then I
>  really haven't noticed. I'm running 2.6.23 and 2.6.24 debian kernels here and
>  I haven't noticed anything problematic about a kernel upgrade in years.
>  Are you using the 386 arch?
>

I am not a kernel developer, but there definitely was a change, and
the developer had major work to do with his scripts that automate the
process for the rest of us.

FYI, as usual the developer responded quickly, and the kernel
functionality was back to normal in updates tonight. Now running
2.6.24-2.6.24.2.slh.7-sidux-686.

-- 
Collins Richey
 If you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries
 of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for.